Run a health check on verified sites to assess performance trends and status. Optionally specify a site and search engine.
Run a health check on one or all verified sites. Checks performance trends and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | No | Optional. The URL of a specific site to check. | |
| engine | No | The search engine (default: google) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'checks performance trends and status' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur (e.g., rate limits, data aggregation). Basic behavioral traits are missing.
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?
A single sentence of 12 words, no wasted text. Information is front-loaded with the core action.
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 output schema, the description could have hinted at the return format or typical results. It covers the action adequately but leaves the user wondering what the output looks like (e.g., status per site, trend summary). Still, for a simple health check, it is marginally complete.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating 'one or all verified sites', clarifying that omitting siteUrl checks all sites. This supplements the schema's optional field.
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 clearly states 'Run a health check on one or all verified sites. Checks performance trends and status.' This specifies the verb (run health check), resource (verified sites), and what is checked (performance trends and status). It distinguishes from many siblings that are for specific analytics or Bing-specific tools, though a sibling 'traffic_health_check' exists and may overlap.
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 when or when-not to use the tool is provided. The description implies it is for checking site health but does not contrast with alternatives like 'traffic_health_check' or other analytics tools. Usage context is left unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.