Check if the upstream API is reachable and get the server's current configuration details, including tool count, cache, retry, and authentication settings.
Check that the upstream API is reachable and report this server's own configuration (tool count, cache, retry, auth).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool reaches out to the upstream API and reports specific configuration details (tool count, cache, retry, auth). No contradictions.
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?
One sentence, no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded before the specific reported fields. Every part of the sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, no parameters, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it reports. It could specify the response format, but for a health-check tool with no inputs this is a minor omission.
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?
With zero parameters, there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies since the schema is trivially complete and no param-level guidance is 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 'Check' and names the exact resources: upstream API reachability and the server's own configuration. It clearly differentiates this health/config tool from the data-oriented siblings like list_pets and get_stats.
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 context is clear: use this when you need to verify upstream connectivity or inspect server configuration. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or when to prefer a sibling, but the described purpose strongly implies the appropriate usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.