test_connectionConfirm a configured connection can reach its server. Use this check to validate connection settings before accessing Markdown notes.
Check that a configured connection can reach its server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The connection id (from list_connections) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the purpose but does not mention return format, side effects, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens on failure. An agent has no idea what to expect as a response, which is a significant gap for a tool with 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Despite the tool's low complexity, the description is incomplete: it does not disclose the success/failure behavior, return value, or whether the operation is read-only. With no output schema and no annotations, this leaves the agent without critical information needed to correctly invoke and interpret the 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?
Schema coverage is 100%—the single 'id' parameter is fully described as 'The connection id (from list_connections)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing it.
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 clearly states the action (check), the object (configured connection), and the specific outcome (can reach its server). It is distinct from siblings like list_connections and add_connection, which are about listing and adding connections, not testing connectivity.
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 implies the tool is for verifying connectivity but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. Since no other testing tool exists among siblings, the intended usage is somewhat self-evident but still lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.