Verify connectivity to Housecall Pro and confirm a configured customer link still resolves. Run this check first when other tools fail to access customer data.
Check that this server can reach Housecall Pro and that a configured customer link still resolves. Run this first when a tool fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input 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 establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool performs a live connectivity check against an external service and validates a customer link, without suggesting destructive side effects.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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 healthcheck tool, the description covers what it checks and when to run it. It does not describe the return format, but the tool's simplicity and the absence of required inputs keep this gap minor.
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 input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter ambiguity exists.
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 and resource: it checks server reachability to Housecall Pro and whether a configured customer link resolves. This clearly distinguishes the healthcheck from sibling data-fetching and mutation 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 explicitly says 'Run this first when a tool fails,' giving clear when-to-use guidance in a diagnostic workflow. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.