Run an end-to-end health check covering profile, OIDC discovery, TLS, auth, tenant, and catalog ping to verify platform readiness before creating or planning work.
End-to-end health narrative: profile, OIDC discovery, TLS, auth, tenant, catalog ping. Prefer before create/plan work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| login_if_needed | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only lists the areas checked. It does not explain whether the tool is read-only, whether it may initiate a login, whether it mutates state, or what happens when a check fails.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the coverage scope, and the second provides direct usage guidance.
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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not define the output format, prerequisites, side effects, or the meaning of login_if_needed. It is minimally usable but not complete enough for confident invocation.
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 sole parameter, login_if_needed, is completely absent from the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but instead adds no meaning beyond the parameter's own name.
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 states the tool's purpose as an 'end-to-end health narrative' and enumerates the components it covers (profile, OIDC discovery, TLS, auth, tenant, catalog ping). This distinguishes it from the many operational and management siblings, though it stops short of an explicit verb like 'check' or 'run'.
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 phrase 'Prefer before create/plan work' gives clear timing/context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.