check_mcp_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is checked (configured, wrapped, process running), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose the return value format, error behavior (e.g., what happens if server is absent), or any side effects. There is no contradiction, but the behavior is only partially transparent.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action and enumerates the specific checks, making it efficient and easily parsed.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should explain return values or expected outcomes, which it does not. It also does not cover edge cases like missing servers or what constitutes a healthy vs. unhealthy response. The description is adequate for selecting the tool but not for expecting its output, so completeness is only partial.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter 'mcp_name' is already described as 'The name of the MCP server to check.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear resource ('health of an MCP server'), and enumerates three concrete aspects it examines (configured, wrapped, process running). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, detail, restart, or wrap servers.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not state, for example, to use it before calling other MCP operations, or to verify if a server is operational, or what to do based on results. The purpose is clear but there is no explicit or implicit usage context.

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