Check the status and health of the opencode server.
Check the status and health of the opencode server.
Returns health info, active session count, and config summary.
{"success": bool, "message": str, "data": dict}
opencode_server_status()
| 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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the response and the categories of data returned, but says nothing about cost, latency, auth prerequisites, or whether it fails when the server is down — notable gaps for a health-check tool.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the return format is clearly sectioned. The '## Examples' block containing a bare no-argument call adds nothing an agent couldn't infer, which is the only wasted space.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by documenting the return envelope and the data categories. What's missing is failure-mode behavior (what happens when the server is unreachable), which matters for a status/health tool.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema disallows additional properties, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status and health of the opencode server', with a summary of what comes back (health info, active session count, config summary). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as opencode_get_health or opencode_system, so it stops short of a 5.
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 only implied — an agent must infer from the returned fields (health, sessions, config) that this is a general-purpose overview. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives opencode_get_health or opencode_system.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.