check_kaynaklarChecks the health and availability of Turkish legal data sources, including Bedesten, Constitutional Court, precedent search, and institutional JSON APIs.
Bedesten, AYM, Emsal, resmi karararama ve kurum JSON API sağlık kontrolü.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds useful scope by enumerating exactly which backends are probed (Bedesten, AYM, Emsal, resmi karararama, kurum), which is real value beyond the annotations. It does not, however, describe aggregate behavior (e.g., whether one failing source fails the whole call) or timing/timeout traits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (the list of sources) earns its place. It is extremely terse, but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential 'what is inspected' information and the output schema can carry the result shape. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any statement about how/when to act on the result.
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 takes zero parameters (schema is an empty closed object), so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation.
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?
States a specific action (health check / "sağlık kontrolü") applied to a named set of resources (Bedesten, AYM, Emsal, resmi karararama, kurum JSON API). This clearly separates it from the search_*/get_* siblings, which consume those same sources rather than verifying them. It falls short of 5 only because the noun phrase "sağlık kontrolü" does not explicitly say what a "check" returns.
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?
The description never states when to call this versus the many search/get siblings. There is no mention of using it as a pre-flight diagnostic, no failure/retry context, and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.