Check server connectivity to accesso and confirm a default ticket link is configured. Resolves setup issues before processing ticket requests.
Check that this server can reach accesso and whether a default ticket link is configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | The accesso ticket link from the order-confirmation email. Optional when ACCESSO_TICKET_URL is set. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds detail about checking connectivity and default link configuration, but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or what happens when ACCESSO_TICKET_URL is unset. No contradiction exists.
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, front-loaded sentence states the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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 simple diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could clarify the return value or the behavior when no URL and no default link are present, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 only parameter, url, is fully described in the schema, including its source and optionality. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resources: server reachability to accesso and default ticket link configuration. It clearly distinguishes this healthcheck tool from the data-access and mutation sibling 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 implies a diagnostic use case but does not explicitly state when to call this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The healthcheck name and sibling context make the intended use reasonably clear, but the guidance is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.