Verify connectivity to the CodeRocket API to diagnose and resolve setup issues.
Check connectivity to the CodeRocket API. Useful for debugging setup issues.
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_check"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the purpose and does not describe the return format, error behavior, whether it's a read-only operation, or any other side effects. This leaves the agent guessing about what a connectivity check actually returns.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with a practical use case.
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 zero-parameter health check, the description provides the core purpose and a use case. However, since there is no output schema, it should ideally mention what the response indicates (e.g., success/failure, latency) to be fully complete. The lack of any return or error semantics is a minor 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 per scoring guidelines the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter details since there are none, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('connectivity to the CodeRocket API'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos, create_pr, and deploy_repo, which all deal with other 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?
It explicitly states a use case: 'useful for debugging setup issues,' which effectively communicates when to use the tool. It does not name alternatives, but no alternatives are needed for a health check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.