Verify the Arc Data API is live and see which routes it currently serves. Returns the §3.5 envelope to confirm the API base before making other calls.
Liveness of the Arc Data API and the list of routes it serves. Returns the §3.5 envelope. Call this first to confirm the API base and see which live routes are wired.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the call is a liveness check, mentions the §3.5 envelope return format, and clarifies that it reveals live routes. It does not discuss error behavior, but for a zero-parameter health probe this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight, front-loaded sentences convey outcome, return style, and usage order without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and lack of output schema, the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly: what it does, what it returns, and when to call it are all stated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, a 4 is appropriate; nothing is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports liveness of the Arc Data API and lists served routes. It uses a specific verb/resource pairing and is easily distinguished from the data-focused sibling tools like arc_agents_list or arc_token_screen.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool first, with the concrete goals of confirming the API base and seeing which routes are wired. This is actionable placement guidance even though no alternative health-check sibling exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.