literature_healthCheck publisher access readiness and retrieve the latest sanitized probe report to confirm browser sessions are operational before extracting literature.
Return browser readiness and the latest sanitized publisher probe report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.9Does 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 a useful qualifier ('sanitized') and indicates it returns the latest report, but it does not describe any other behavioral traits, caveats, or how the report relates to current readiness.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates exactly what the tool returns without repeating the title or schema.
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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It names the two key outputs and the 'latest' aspect, leaving return-value details to the schema. Nothing essential is missing for invoking this tool.
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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool and requires no additional compensation.
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 names a clear verb ('Return') and two concrete resources: browser readiness and the latest sanitized publisher probe report. It reads distinctly from siblings like literature_probe, though it does not explicitly say 'this does not run a new probe' or reference an alternative.
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 tool's purpose as a health/readiness check is implied by the title and description, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it gives no explicit 'when to use vs literature_probe' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention that this returns the latest report rather than triggering a new probe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.