Tulina

oto_admin_instance_health

[platform admin] Is a THIRD PARTY's connector session still alive? Runs the login probe the connector itself declares, against that instance's stored browser context, and returns a verdict — connected / rejected upstream / probe unavailable — with the reason and whether logging in again would help. Answers the support question 'must they reconnect, or is it something else?' without an SSH session and a throwaway script. ⚠️ It runs ONLY the declared probe, never a request you choose: no business data is read, nothing is written, and the browser session it opens is ephemeral. connected: null means the probe gave NO verdict — that is 'unknown', not 'logged out'; telling someone to log in again on that basis is how a whole morning was lost.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "instance_id": "<instance_id>"
    },
    "name": "oto_admin_instance_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`_org`	No
`instance_id`	Yes	Identifiant de l'instance de connecteur à sonder (celle d'un TIERS : c'est tout l'objet). On nomme une instance, jamais une requête — la sonde exécutée est celle que le connecteur déclare.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no business data is read, nothing is written, and the browser session is ephemeral, plus the three verdict outcomes and the critical caveat that `connected: null` means 'unknown', not 'logged out'. It does not mention required admin permissions or any rate/timeout behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core question and verdict set, then the safety constraints, then the misleading-null warning. Dense but every sentence carries information; the emphasis styling and anecdotal aside ('how a whole morning was lost') add color without derailing the agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, yet the description summarizes the return values (verdict, reason, whether relogin would help) and warns about the null semantics, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Only the admin/authorization prerequisites for a platform-admin tool are left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: instance_id is described in the schema, but `_org` is undocumented in both places. The description reinforces that the instance belongs to a third party and that you name an instance rather than a request, which adds some meaning, but it never touches `_org` or parameter formats, so it only partially compensates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ('runs the login probe the connector declares against that instance's stored browser context') and states the exact output shape (connected / rejected upstream / probe unavailable). It also contrasts with the obvious alternative approach (SSH session + throwaway script) and clearly separates itself from broader health siblings like oto_admin_vault_health or oto_admin_monitoring.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete trigger scenario — answering the support question 'must they reconnect, or is it something else?' — and a clear usage constraint: it runs only the connector's declared probe, never an arbitrary request. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools to use instead when the question is not about session liveness, so it is strong but not exhaustive routing guidance.

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

All Tulina tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?