health_checkVerifies that the MCP server is running by checking its health endpoint. Returns current status and server information to confirm operational readiness.
Health check endpoint that verifies the server is running.
Returns: Dictionary with status and server information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it returns a dictionary with status and server information, but does not state whether the operation is side-effect free, what error behavior occurs if the server is down, or any rate limits or authentication needs. For a health check, these omissions are significant.
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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return type is mentioned briefly. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks any mention of edge cases or whether it is a read-only operation, which would be useful since annotations are absent. Still, for a trivial health check, this is adequate.
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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the description correctly stays silent. The description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter details.
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 clear purpose: 'Health check endpoint that verifies the server is running.' It is not a tautology and conveys the specific function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like ping or get_connection_status, so it misses a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that ping might be a lighter check or that get_connection_status offers more detail. There is no 'when not to use' or explicit routing to siblings, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.