ENSP-MCP AI

by dawnight0x

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Health Check

health_check

Run a quick status check on one Huawei eNSP device using its IP to detect connectivity or configuration problems.

Instructions

Run a quick health check on one device.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "device_ip": "<device_ip>"
    },
    "name": "health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`device_ip`	Yes	Device name or IP

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of what the check measures, whether device credentials/connectivity are required, how long "quick" takes, or whether the operation is read-only. Only a vague latency hint ("quick") is offered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and several near-duplicate sibling tools, the description should explain what a health check returns and how it differs from multi_health_check/mcp_health_check. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently or select it over alternatives.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Device name or IP"), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing beyond "one device", which is why the baseline of 3 applies rather than a higher score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run a quick health check") and scopes it to "one device", which implicitly separates it from the sibling multi_health_check. However, it never names the alternative tools (multi_health_check, mcp_health_check) or clarifies what distinguishes this variant from them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance. With three health-check siblings (health_check, mcp_health_check, multi_health_check) in the toolset, the agent gets no signal about which one to pick or under what conditions. "On one device" is the only hint, and it is never contrasted with the multi-device alternative.

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