Check Server Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it lists tools and measures response time, which are behavioral details beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose error conditions or what 'health' entails.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word contributes value: 'Check the health', 'registered MCP server', 'list tools', 'measure response time'. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main actions. It could include details about return format or behavior when the server is not registered, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and safe annotation profile.

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 schema describes 'name' but not 'timeout_ms'. The description does not explain the timeout parameter or its relation to response time measurement. With schema coverage at 50%, the description should compensate for the missing parameter semantics, but it doesn't.

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' with resource 'registered MCP server', and explicitly lists what it does: list tools and measure response time. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling check_* tools for HTTP, GitHub Actions, and GitLab Pipelines.

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 description states it checks a 'registered MCP server', giving clear context that this tool is for MCP servers specifically. It implies usage for MCP health checks but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like check_http_target or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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