Get Zynx MCP Health

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool performs a status check with no side effects, but does not describe output format, potential failure modes, or whether it requires authentication. For a simple health check, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the action verb 'Check' and contains no redundant phrasing. It earns its place with every word conveying essential meaning.

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?

Given the tool's extreme simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully captures its purpose and resource. The sibling tools are all data operations, so there is no ambiguity about when this health check is relevant. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter details. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the schema is empty and no additional semantic meaning is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and names the resource 'Zynx Supabase MCP server', with the scope 'alive and configured'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling data-operation tools like query_table and search_memory, which are unrelated in purpose.

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 provides clear context: this is a health-check tool to verify server liveness and configuration, which implies use when diagnosing server availability. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the stark contrast with sibling tools, so no exclusions are needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.