Reports whether the server and database respond and returns the database path. Use when another tool hits an INTERNAL error or no response to tell a down server from a bad request.
Report whether the server and its database answer, with the database path. Call it when another tool fails with an INTERNAL error or no answer, to tell a down server from a bad request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: it reports both server and database reachability and includes the database path, and frames the tool as a failure-triage probe.
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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first states what is reported, the second states when to call it and why. Front-loaded with the outcome, no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description explains what the result conveys (server and database answering, plus the database path). For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with read-only annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to convey, and the description correctly does not fabricate any.
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 states a specific verb (report) and resource (server and its database), plus the returned datum (the database path). No sibling tool in the list performs diagnostics, so it is trivially distinguished from the agent/messaging/reservation tools.
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 gives an explicit trigger (when another tool fails with an INTERNAL error or no answer) and the diagnostic intent (distinguish a down server from a bad request). An agent knows exactly when to reach for this versus retrying or fixing a request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.