Check the health status, latency, and error details of all portfolio services including Semantic Search API and Eval Framework.
Check health of all portfolio services: Semantic Search API and Eval Framework. Returns status, latency, and error details for each component.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the output scope (status, latency, error details) and the fact that coverage spans both services, which is not derivable from annotations alone.
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?
One sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies components and return fields. Every element contributes to understanding.
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?
Given no parameters, rich annotations, and the simple nature of a status check, the description covers the essential input, output, and scope. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly mentioning status, latency, and error details.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The 100% schema coverage is trivially satisfied, and the baseline of 4 applies as no param semantics 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?
Description states a clear verb ('Check health') and specific resource ('all portfolio services') with named components (Semantic Search API, Eval Framework). It naturally differentiates from sibling tools focused on searching, running evals, or managing prompts.
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 tool's purpose as a health check is immediately clear, providing ample context for when an agent would invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but siblings are clearly distinct operations, so the absence of direct comparison is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.