apple_health_connection_statusChecks Apple Health export path, Node version, privacy mode, and Hermes client posture to verify MCP server readiness without reading full export data.
Check local Apple Health export path, Node version, privacy mode and Hermes client posture without reading full export data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | No | generic | |
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about not reading full export data, which is a behavioral constraint beyond annotations.
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?
Single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details without waste. Every word adds value.
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 status tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it checks but omits details on return format or that it produces a report. It is adequate but missing some completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not explain the two parameters ('client' and 'response_format') at all, leaving their purpose and valid values unclear.
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?
Description states specific verb 'Check' and lists precise items (export path, Node version, privacy mode, Hermes client posture). It also explicitly says it does not read full export data, distinguishing it from data-reading siblings like 'apple_health_list_records'.
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 clearly implies when to use (to check status before other operations) and what not to use it for (reading data), but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.