Checks system health by returning a snapshot of index, catalog, model state, and latency alerts, providing overall status and component details for monitoring.
Return a health snapshot for monitoring.
Checks the index, catalog, model state, and measured latency alerts.
Returns: Overall status and component details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, but the description explicitly says it checks and returns, implying a read-only diagnostic operation and listing the areas inspected. It stops short of confirming there are no side effects, but the health-check framing makes the behavior reasonably transparent.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler, and the core behavior and return value are front-loaded. The description is directly usable without unnecessary detail.
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 no-argument health check, the description is complete: it states what is checked and what is returned. The presence of an output schema means detailed return-field documentation is not required in the description.
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 is empty and the description introduces no parameter expectations, which is appropriate since the tool takes no arguments. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools; no additional parameter semantics are 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?
Clearly identifies the operation as returning a health snapshot for monitoring and specifies the checked subsystems (index, catalog, model state, latency alerts). This distinguishes it from the large set of note, graph, and link-related sibling 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?
States the monitoring purpose, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or give conditions for when to call it. For a simple no-argument health check, the intended use is inferable but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.