statusCheck a deployment's health by testing its public URL, reporting whether it is reachable and its HTTP response code.
State of one deploy, including an HTTP check of its public URL (reachable/httpStatus).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Deploy name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: it performs a live HTTP check of the public URL and reports reachability/status. This warns the agent that the operation is network-dependent, going beyond the read-only safety signal.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource scope and the key behavioral qualifier (HTTP check). There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.
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 read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough for correct invocation: it identifies the deploy and what result will be reported. It names the main returned fields (reachable/httpStatus), though it does not enumerate all possible states.
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 schema already documents the only parameter, 'name', with the description 'Deploy name', so the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource as 'one deploy' and its state, which distinguishes it from broader operations like list. It also names the concrete output aspect ('reachable/httpStatus') from an HTTP check. It lacks a strong imperative verb but is specific enough to separate it from siblings.
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?
Usage is implied by 'State of one deploy' — the agent can infer this is for checking a single named deploy. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over siblings like list or logs, nor any mention of edge cases such as unreachable URLs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.