health
Liveness.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
meta-agent-tools
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Liveness' only hints that this is a health check. It does not state what response is returned, whether it performs any action, or what failure conditions exist—so transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Being one word is not conciseness; it is under-specification. There is no informative content beyond the tool name, and the description fails to serve its purpose of explaining the tool to an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description still leaves critical context unclear—such as the response format, whether it returns status or data, and the meaning of 'liveness' in practice. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this definition.
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 input schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter-specific value, but there is also nothing missing given the zero-parameter baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Liveness' is a near-synonym of the tool name 'health', essentially restating it rather than describing an action or resource. It vaguely indicates a health check but lacks a verb or any specific functional detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus any sibling tool. There is no mention of use cases, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly separated by resource/action (listings, comments, servers, billing, health). The main ambiguity is among get_listing, get_listing_readme, and go_listing, which all involve retrieving or routing to a listing but return different things.
Naming Consistency4/5
The set mostly follows a verb_noun snake_case convention (create_listing, get_listing_readme, list_comments, like_listing). A few bare endpoint-style names (billing, contact, health, api_index) break the pattern but are still recognizable.
Tool Count4/5
Thirteen tools is a reasonable size and each area—registry, comments, billing, health—has at least one tool. The count is not bloated, though the mixed domains make it feel slightly less focused than a single-purposed server.
Completeness3/5
The listing registry covers create, get, list, like, visit, and readme retrieval, but lacks obvious update/delete operations and any way to create comments. The billing/contact side is also thin, exposing prices and one paid action rather than a fuller payment flow.