Check longrun MCP health

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful specifics about the returned data (paths, versions, guardrails) without contradicting the annotations. It does not disclose potential side effects, but none are expected given the read-only nature.

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, focused sentence that conveys all necessary information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has no parameters, includes an output schema, and is annotated as read-only, the description is fully adequate. It states what the tool returns, and the output schema handles the rest. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description rightly omits parameter details. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and enumerates the exact resources (server paths, versions, guardrails), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from siblings run_and_wait and read_log_tail, which involve execution and log reading respectively.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name 'health' and description imply it is for status checks, which serves as a weak implicit usage signal. No alternatives are mentioned or exclusions stated.

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