CodeSentinel

check_mcp_health

Probe a remote MCP server: Streamable HTTP / SSE handshake (initialize + tools/list), a known-bad tools/call error-shape probe, and a Streamable HTTP diagnostic matrix (WRONG_METHOD, WRONG_ACCEPT, MISSING_SESSION, GET_VS_POST, SESSION_STICKY_MISMATCH). HTTP 200 is not treated as healthy.

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": {
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>"
    },
    "name": "check_mcp_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endpoint`	Yes	Remote MCP URL (Streamable HTTP or legacy SSE)
`transport`	No	Transport probe mode. auto tries Streamable HTTP then legacy SSE
`timeout_ms`	No	Per-request timeout in milliseconds
`baseline_hash`	No	Previous canonical tools/list SHA-256 hex for drift alarms
`include_probes`	No	Run silent-exception + Streamable HTTP diagnostics (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / include_probes

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Run silent-exception + Streamable HTTP diagnostics (default true)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavior: it performs a handshake, an error-shape probe, and a diagnostic matrix, and it explicitly warns that HTTP 200 is not treated as healthy. It does not state authentication requirements, side effects, or whether the probe is read-only, so some behavioral gaps remain.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that puts the core action first and then lists the probes. It is dense but every part serves to specify behavior, with no obvious filler.

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?

Given five parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete about what the tool does. It does not describe return values or safety profile, but the detailed probe list provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('remote MCP server'), then enumerates exactly which handshake and diagnostic probes are performed. The subject matter is clearly distinct from the code-analysis sibling tools, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the description ('Probe a remote MCP server'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as full_health_scan. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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

All CodeSentinel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?