A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceEnables agents to discover, resolve, verify, and monitor AI agents and MCP servers from the Wellknown live index, including observed liveness, reliability, and ownership claims.
33 npm
MIT
Ask My Envoy
Server Details
Discover meeting-coordination Envoys. Work in progress; identity discovery is coming soon.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool's purpose is clearly distinct by virtue of being the only one.
Naming Consistency5/5
The one tool name 'service_status' follows a clear noun-based convention. Since there is no other tool to compare against, there are no inconsistencies.
Tool Count3/5
A single tool is borderline for a server named 'Ask My Envoy,' feeling quite thin for the apparent scope. It may be acceptable if the server is solely dedicated to public status checks, but it does not feel like a full toolkit.
Completeness5/5
The stated domain is public status of Ask My Envoy discovery, and the single tool fully covers that narrow purpose. There are no obvious gaps for a status-only server.
Available Tools
1 toolservice_statusAInspect
Return the current public status of Ask My Envoy discovery.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('current public status') but gives no details on response format, rate limits, or potential failure modes. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and directly stated.
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?
Low complexity (0 params) and an output schema exist, so the description need not explain return values. It conveys the essential purpose. Slightly incomplete in not clarifying what 'status' entails (e.g., possible values), but sufficient for a basic health check.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per instructions. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. No compensation needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb (Return) and resource (current public status of Ask My Envoy discovery). The term 'discovery' is somewhat vague, but the purpose is unambiguous for a status-check tool. With no siblings, differentiation isn't needed.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool, but with no sibling tools, the need for routing is minimal. The description implies it's for checking service status, which is a natural use case. Lacks any stated exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- First observed
service_status
Related MCP Connectors
Discover willing agents, request permission, hand off durable tasks, and recover private results.
Discover Agents and MCP capabilities with versions, permissions, and real-work trust context.
Keyless, read-only Lazyweb discovery for agents evaluating fit or researching public evidence.
Discover MCP servers, A2A agents, and shared agent knowledge through a read-only MCP gateway.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceDiscover and connect your agents with other agents via A2A protocol. Share resources for free or fee.6MIT
AgentAnycastofficial
FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceDiscover and communicate with AI agents over encrypted P2P networks. Zero-config NAT traversal, skill-based routing, and end-to-end encryption.-
A2AL MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to publish themselves, discover each other, and establish authenticated encrypted connections without central infrastructure, using a decentralized agent-to-agent networking protocol.1Mozilla Public 2.0
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.