Meta MCP Health Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds specific behavioral details: that it checks token status, cached tokens, API connectivity, and returns token validity, cached token count, Threads status, and reachability. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limiting. The bar is lower with annotations present, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then listing the specific checks and return values. No wasted words. It's clean and structured, earning a 5.

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 health-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It says what it checks and exactly what it returns. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 for the single parameter is 100% (response_format with enum and default, and a clear description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information, but the schema already fully documents it. Baseline is 3, and since there's no gap to compensate for, a 3 is correct.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Checks the health of the Meta MCP server' and enumerates specific aspects (token status, cached tokens, API connectivity) and outputs. This is specific and unambiguous, and since there's no other health-check sibling, it stands alone.

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 implies the tool is for verifying server health and status, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it (e.g., 'before making API calls') or exclude any alternatives. There are no obvious sibling health-check tools, so the lack of explicit guidance is a minor gap, but there's really no alternative routing needed. It falls between 'clear context, no exclusions' (4) and 'implied usage' (3). Given no explicit usage context, I give a 3.

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