Check MCP server health

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

The description discloses that the tool returns request counts, rate limit status, and error information, which is useful. However, it does not mention that enabling the 'probe' parameter triggers a real API request, nor does it explain the side effects or network behavior of a probe. With no annotations available, this is a notable gap.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key metrics returned. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 health-check tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of return content. However, it omits important contextual details about probe behavior and potential external calls, which are relevant for an agent deciding whether invoking the tool is safe or appropriate.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented within the schema. The description adds general context about returned metrics but does not explain how parameters like 'probe' or 'probe_timeout' affect the tool's behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the tool returns health status and metrics, identifying a specific resource and action ('Returns health status and metrics'). The domain of health checking is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling search 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 gives clear context: this tool is used to check server health and retrieve operational metrics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated search operations, so there is little risk of misuse.

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