hosting-doctor-mcp

Check HTTP Status

check_http_status

Checks a URL's live HTTP status, latency, and redirect chain to identify if a site is down, slow, or stuck in redirect loops.

Instructions

Makes a live HTTP request to a URL and reports the status code, latency, and full redirect chain. Use this to check whether a site is up, slow, or stuck in a redirect loop.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "check_http_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The URL or hostname to check, e.g. https://example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool makes a live network request and reports latency, status, and redirect chain. It does not mention timeouts, error handling, whether requests are followed, or that a live request can be slow—leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior and outputs are front-loaded, followed by concrete use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough key information: what it checks, what it reports, and common use cases. It could be more complete by mentioning possible failure modes or timeouts, but the essentials are covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully documents the url parameter with type and an example. The tool description references making a request to a URL but does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's action: making a live HTTP request to a URL. It also specifies the concrete outputs—status code, latency, and full redirect chain—which differentiates it from sibling tools like check_ssl, check_dns, or check_security_headers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: to check if a site is up, slow, or stuck in a redirect loop. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls slightly short of the highest bar.

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

Deploy Server