PrijsProfeet MCP

pp_health_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if the PrijsProfeet API is reachable. Use when a tool returns 5xx errors to distinguish an outage from a bad request.

Instructions

Check that the PrijsProfeet API is reachable. Call this when another tool returns 5xx to tell an outage apart from a bad request.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pp_health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it is a diagnostic probe whose meaning depends on other calls failing with 5xx. It does not state what a successful or failed check returns, a minor gap given there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, action first and trigger second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless read-only probe the description is nearly sufficient: purpose and trigger are both covered. The one omission is what the result looks like (reachable vs. unreachable signal), which matters slightly because no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to explain. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is self-evident.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check that the PrijsProfeet API is reachable.' This cleanly separates it from all sibling tools, which are data-fetching operations, so an agent can identify it as the diagnostic probe without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('when another tool returns 5xx') and the decision it informs ('tell an outage apart from a bad request'). This is a rare case of precise when-to-use routing rather than generic guidance.

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