Skip to main content
Glama

Boosthis

by com.boosthis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Release Check

boosthis_release_check
Read-only

How the last release held up, from the running app after it shipped, against the version this project's own measurements reported. Six answers: did served fixes stop the problems, did anything get slower, did new problems appear, did an old one come back, did a recorded promise pass its line, did the changes Boosthis witnessed hold up. Each carries its numbers and window; a part without enough evidence says so, and when it could answer. No combined score. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runtimeNoWhich runtime to read, e.g. node, web, rn or py. Omit: whichever reported most recently.
install_idNoInstall id (Connect AI card).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / install_id / description
      Previous value: -"Install id (dashboard card)."New value: +"Install id (Connect AI card)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / runtime / description
      Previous value: -"Which runtime of this project to read, e.g. node, web, rn or py. Omit to read whichever reported most recently."New value: +"Which runtime to read, e.g. node, web, rn or py. Omit: whichever reported most recently."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / install_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Install id (dashboard card).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / runtime / description
      Previous value: -"Which runtime of this project to read, for example node, web, rn or py. Omit to read whichever reported most recently."New value: +"Which runtime of this project to read, e.g. node, web, rn or py. Omit to read whichever reported most recently."
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the six answer types, that parts without enough evidence will say so, and that there is no combined score. This goes beyond the safety hints.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is somewhat verbose and uses poetic phrasing ('did served fixes stop the problems') rather than a concise, direct enumeration. It is structured with a clear opening and a list of six answers, but could be tightened significantly without losing meaning.

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, so the description must explain the return. It does so by specifying six answers with numbers and windows, and notes that evidence may be insufficient. It also clarifies there is no combined score. While the exact output format is not detailed, this is reasonably complete for a read-only check.

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 100%, with both parameters (runtime and install_id) fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool evaluates the last release's performance against the project's own measurements, listing six specific aspects it checks. It identifies the resource (release) and the action (check), which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like boosthis_crash_risk or boosthis_check_claim, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

The description implies the tool is for post-release evaluation (e.g., 'How the last release held up'), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

All Boosthis toolsInspect
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