mcp_get_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It states a read operation but doesn't disclose whether the result is cached, what components are checked, or the meaning of the health score. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description only needs to define its purpose. While minimal, it omits details about what 'health status' entails (e.g., checks performed, score range). This is adequate for a simple tool but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the output.

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?

There are 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema is complete. The description does not need to add parameter details. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it adds no extra meaning beyond 'no parameters 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 a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'site health status and score', which unambiguously defines the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'mcp_get_plugins_health' by focusing on overall site health.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer it over 'mcp_get_plugins_health' or similar diagnostics. The description lacks context for usage or exclusions.

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