Verify MCP server connectivity and validate your API key by checking the current membership tier and free-plan status.
检查面面星 MCP 连接与当前 API key 的会员权益状态（免费）。用于验证 key 是否有效、当前套餐档位。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "health"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it communicates that this is a diagnostic, read-only operation ('检查', '验证') and that it is free ('免费'). It does not detail the response format, but for a zero-parameter health check the main behavioral traits are adequately disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and diagnostic purpose without any filler. Every clause adds meaningful information.
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 zero-parameter health check with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and why. It stops short of specifying the exact response shape, but that is a minor omission given the simple diagnostic nature of the tool.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to add beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
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 opens with a specific verb '检查' (check) and names two concrete resources: the MCP connection and the membership entitlement status of the current API key. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which are all content-generation or assessment operations.
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 states the intended use case explicitly: '用于验证 key 是否有效、当前套餐档位' (to verify key validity and current plan tier). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool performs a health-check role, so the usage context is clear enough without them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.