Checks whether the Listmonk server is reachable and responding, returning health data in one request without retries; use it first to diagnose connection errors.
Check that the Listmonk server is reachable and responding, and return its health data. Makes a single request with no retries. Use it first when other tools fail with connection errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that—a single request with no retries, indicating fast, non-idempotent-retry failure semantics—though it stops short of saying whether failures raise an error or return a status payload.
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?
Three short sentences with the core purpose first, followed by execution behavior, then the routing hint. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 probe with no output schema, the description covers purpose, execution behavior, and usage routing. The only soft gap is that 'health data' is not itemized, but the shape of a health response is not critical to invoking this 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the entry schema is empty and the baseline of 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 (check) and resource (Listmonk server) plus what it returns (health data). Among 35+ sibling tools focused on subscribers, campaigns, templates, and media, it is unmistakably the diagnostic endpoint.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it first when other tools fail with connection errors.' That tells the agent both when to use it and how it relates to the rest of the toolset, with no inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.