Verify database and Service Layer connectivity by pinging DirectDb (SELECT) and Service Layer (GET), then report whether each connection is active.
Check if the database and Service Layer connections are active and alive. Pings DirectDb (SELECT query) and Service Layer (GET request) independently. No parameters required. Reports status for both connections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it issues a SELECT against DirectDb and a GET against Service Layer, making clear this is a non-mutating probe, and that the two checks run independently. It does not state failure semantics (e.g., whether one failed connection causes an error or a partial report).
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by mechanism, then call mechanics and output. Every sentence adds information and none is redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must hint at returns; 'Reports status for both connections' covers the shape adequately for a simple health check. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only the exact status format and failure behavior left unspecified.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'No parameters required', which matches the empty input schema and removes any ambiguity for the agent.
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?
Names a specific verb (check/ping) and two specific resources (DirectDb, Service Layer), and states the exact mechanism used for each. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like connect_database and execute_sql by being a status probe rather than an action, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 explains what happens but not when to prefer this over connect_database or execute_sql, nor any precondition or exclusion. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'No parameters required', which is a call mechanic, not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.