Verifies InfluxDB connectivity by checking health and ping endpoints separately; successful access to either confirms the server is reachable even if health credentials are denied.
Check health and ping separately. Any successful endpoint confirms health. A credential denied health access does not imply its permitted databases are unavailable. Client initialization alone does not prove connectivity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1-test.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add real context: health and ping are distinct endpoints, any success confirms health, and a denied credential does not prove permitted databases are down. It still omits what a response looks like, whether latency/status fields are returned, and whether this touches credentials or state.
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?
Four short sentences with no filler, and the core action leads. Some phrasing ('Check health and ping separately') is compressed to the point of ambiguity, which slightly undercuts front-loading.
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-param, no-output-schema probe, the description should explain the shape of the result or at least what counts as a failure. It provides useful interpretation caveats but leaves the agent unable to predict the response, and there are no annotations to cover the gap.
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 takes zero parameters and the description correctly introduces no parameter discussion, so there is nothing to mis-describe. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool 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 opening 'Check health and ping separately' indicates a health-check operation, but it never states what is being checked (the server? a database? a cluster endpoint?) and the word 'separately' is ambiguous — it may describe two distinct endpoints or two modes. An agent can infer a liveness probe, but not the target resource.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus siblings like investigate_database, load_database_context, or query_sql, and no prerequisites. The sentences about credential denial and client initialization guide interpretation of results rather than use, which is useful but not selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.