Check which code analyzers are available and verify their versions for a Python project quality review. Use it to confirm tool availability before running evaluations.
Health check: each analyzer tool version and availability.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read (listing versions/availability) but never states that it is read-only, whether it requires auth, or how costly it is to call. 'Health check' hints at a diagnostic purpose but adds little behavioral substance.
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 compact fragment with no waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, though the telegraphic phrasing ('each analyzer tool version') is slightly awkward as prose.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be described. For a zero-param listing tool this is nearly adequate, but with no annotations the description should state that the call is read-only and safe, which it omits.
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 and the schema is fully documented, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 resource and its content: analyzer tool versions and availability. The 'Health check' framing is vague, but the second clause disambiguates it as a listing/diagnostic read. It is distinguishable from siblings evaluate and explain_rule, which are action/explanation 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'Health check' label weakly implies a diagnostic use case, but the agent is not told under what conditions to call this instead of evaluate or explain_rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.