Check that the BunkerWeb API is reachable and returns the expected pong response. Use it as a quick liveness probe; run diagnose to also verify authentication, version, and instances.
Check that the BunkerWeb API answers (GET /ping, returns pong). Use it as the fastest liveness probe; use diagnose to also check authentication, version and instances.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information beyond that: it discloses that this call checks reachability only and does not verify authentication, version, or instances, which prevents an agent from over-reading a successful pong. A minimal note on timeout/error behavior would earn a 5.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the routing guidance. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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 liveness probe, the description covers what it does, what response to expect, what it does not verify, and which sibling to use instead. No output schema exists, but the return value (pong) is stated inline, so nothing an agent needs 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.
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 and resource ('Check that the BunkerWeb API answers'), names the exact endpoint (GET /ping), and gives the expected response (pong). An agent can distinguish it from diagnose without reading any schema.
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?
Explicitly says to use it as the fastest liveness probe and names the alternative, diagnose, together with what extra checks that alternative adds (authentication, version, instances). Both the when and the when-else are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.