Check ChatGPT connection health before the first request; returns readiness status and a next action for setup, connection, or recovery without exposing chat content.
Check once before the first request. Returns ready and a next_action for setup, connection, or recovery; no chat content is exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns 'ready' and a 'next_action' for setup/connection/recovery, and it explicitly states that no chat content is exposed. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies what the agent can expect from the call, covering the tool's behavior without contradicting the read-only hint.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the most important instruction ('Check once before the first request') and then states the return value and a key limitation. There is no waste or redundancy; every phrase earns its place.
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, read-only health check, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent when to call, what it returns (ready and next_action), and what it does not return (chat content). The only minor gap is the lack of detail on the possible values of 'next_action' or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of readOnlyHint, this is acceptable. The description is sufficient 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to explain any parameters. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and there is nothing to add. The description's mention of return values is separate from parameter semantics.
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 a specific action (check) on a specific resource (health), and clarifies it returns ready and next_action for setup/connection/recovery. It also explicitly notes no chat content is exposed, which differentiates it from sibling chat tools like chatgpt_ask and review_with_chatgpt. The verb and scope are unambiguous.
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 gives a clear when-to-use instruction: 'Check once before the first request.' This implies it is a one-time preflight check. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context of siblings (ask, review, cancel) makes it obvious this is the health/readiness gate, not a chat or operation tool. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.