health_checkCheck if the Canvas API is reachable and the token is valid. Returns ok or error status to confirm server access.
Check if the Canvas API is reachable and the token is valid. Returns ok/error status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds concrete behavior—checking reachability and token validity—and states the return status shape ('ok/error'), beyond what the empty schema and annotations reveal.
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?
One concise sentence with no filler, front-loads the action and the return contract.
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?
With no parameters and a clear return status, the description is nearly complete for a health-check tool. Slightly more detail on what 'ok' vs 'error' contains could help, but it is adequate.
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?
Tool has zero parameters; there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies.
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 verb ('check'), the resource ('Canvas API'), and what is being verified ('reachable' and 'token valid'). Clearly distinguishes this from the many sibling domain 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?
The description clearly implies a health-check usage: verify API connectivity and token validity. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, but no sibling offers the same function, so little ambiguity exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.