Health check for the opencode server.
Health check for the opencode server.
Returns basic connectivity status and uptime.
{"success": bool, "message": str, "data": dict}
opencode_get_health()
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.11Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context in the return format and the fact that uptime is reported, but says nothing about timeouts, failure modes, or latency — modest added value on top of annotations.
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?
Front-loaded with the purpose, then return format and example. The '## Examples' block for a zero-argument call is largely ceremonial and doesn't earn its space, but the rest is tight.
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?
With no output schema, the inline Return Format ({success, message, data}) usefully covers the return shape, and a zero-parameter health check needs little else. Lacking only explicit guidance on when to prefer it over its status-oriented siblings.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The explicit empty example opencode_get_health() confirms no arguments are needed.
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 gives a specific verb and resource (health check for the opencode server) plus what is returned (connectivity status and uptime). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling opencode_server_status, which plausibly overlaps.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the word 'health check', but the description never states when to call this versus opencode_server_status or opencode_system, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.