Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

by ai.tunnelmind

health_check

Returns a minimal status object confirming the API is alive. Use this to verify connectivity before chaining other calls, or as a liveness check in a workflow.

Use this tool when:

  • You need to verify the API is reachable before starting a multi-step investigation.

  • A prior call failed with a 503 or 504 and you want to confirm the service recovered.

  • You are debugging connectivity from a new environment.

Do NOT use this tool when:

  • You want actual tracker data — use get_domain or search instead.

  • You want to check a specific domain — this returns nothing domain-specific.

Inputs:

  • None.

Returns:

  • ok: always true if the API is up.

  • ts: ISO 8601 timestamp of the server's current time.

Cost:

  • Free. No API key required. Not rate-limited.

Latency:

  • Typical: <50ms, p99: <200ms.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses the exact return fields ('ok', 'ts'), cost ('Free'), authentication needs ('No API key required'), rate limits ('Not rate-limited'), and latency (typical and p99). No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (what, when, inputs, returns, cost, latency). Every sentence serves a purpose—no fluff. It is slightly long but highly informative, making efficient use of space.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description covers all essential contexts: purpose, use cases, non-use cases, inputs (none), outputs (with descriptions), cost, and performance. It is fully complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it, especially given the empty schema and no output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Inputs: None.' This aligns with the baseline of 4 for zero-param tools and adds a useful explicit confirmation. Since there are no parameters to document, the description cannot add more value.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns a minimal status object confirming the API is alive.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('status object'), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing away from data retrieval tools like get_domain and search.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit 'Use this tool when' and 'Do NOT use this tool when' sections, with concrete scenarios (connectivity verification, 503/504 recovery) and named alternatives (get_domain, search). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All TunnelMind Data API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as cross_lens_verify, cross_lens_lookup, profile_entity, and preflight_should_i_act, which all return node verdicts with subtle differences. Sigil verification tools and receipt-related tools also have similar names and require deep reading to distinguish.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tool names are mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (get_domain, create_subscription) while others use domain prefixes (sigil_*, ghostroute_*, intel_*). Within each domain, naming is consistent, but the overall style lacks uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

With 90 tools, this server is extremely overloaded. Even for a multi-purpose data API, the sheer number overwhelms and makes navigation difficult, far exceeding the typical well-scoped MCP server. The count is an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering tracker lookup, cross-lens verification, receipts, compliance, subscriptions, tasks, intel probes, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch cross-lens verification, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources