Checks whether MinerU and Ollama services are running and responsive, ensuring the dual-extract processing pipeline is ready for use.
health tool：MinerU + Ollama 双服务探活。
注意：其余 7 个工具均为 async handler；FastMCP 1.29 对同步 handler
会在 running loop 内直接同步调用，内部再 asyncio.run 会嵌套报错，
故此处统一为 async + await（health_service.check 仍保留同步兜底）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool probes two specific services and includes a note about async/sync implementation details. It does not explicitly state side-effect freedom or failure behavior, though an output schema exists and the operation is inherently read-only.
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 first sentence is concise, but the long '注意' section about FastMCP 1.29 handler internals and asyncio.run nesting is irrelevant to an agent selecting or invoking the tool. This implementation detail should be removed or moved to developer documentation; it does not earn its place in the tool description.
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 probe with an output schema, the essential information is present: what is being probed (MinerU + Ollama) and that it is a liveness check. The async note is extraneous but not harmful, and the missing failure semantics are likely covered by the output schema.
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 the schema confirms 100% coverage with no required properties. Per the rubric, zero parameters receive a baseline of 4; no additional parameter documentation is needed.
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 states 'MinerU + Ollama 双服务探活' (liveness probe for both MinerU and Ollama services), giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the seven extraction/processing siblings, so an agent can tell what it is for without inspecting schemas.
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 purpose implies when to use it (check service health), and the sibling tools are obviously unrelated, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. There are also no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.