Boosthis

Vigilance

boosthis_vigilance

Read-only

What is Boosthis watching for on this project, and what has it found? Returns ONE project’s standing Vigilance verdict plus every watch it is running — worst first — and for each: what it watches, what it currently says, and the evidence behind that answer (how many measurements, over which window, on which part, and when the app was last heard from). Also returns what Vigilance CANNOT watch here and why: no history yet, reporting switched off, kit too old, or the part was never named. Those are unknowns, never good news. Pass install_id and read_token from the project’s page in the Boosthis dashboard (“Connect AI once”). No score and no grade is given. Read-only, returns no credentials, and never counted as an AI read or charged to the account’s AI allowance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`install_id`	Yes	The project’s install id, shown on its page in the Boosthis dashboard.
`read_token`	Yes	Read-only token for that same project (“Connect AI once”).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it is never counted as an AI read, returns no credentials, gives no score or grade, and describes the 'cannot watch' cases and why. This tells the agent exactly what side effects and limitations to expect.

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 long but information-dense, and it front-loads the purpose as a user-oriented question. The remaining sentences systematically cover watches, evidence, unknowns, authentication, and read-only behavior, so no sentence feels wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what the response will contain: one verdict, each watch with its evidence, and the reasons Vigilance cannot watch certain aspects. It also covers authentication and the read-only/no-allowance effect, making the tool's behavior fully predictable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that install_id and read_token come from the project's dashboard page and must belong to the same project, but this adds only slight context beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: Vigilance status with the verdict, watches, and evidence. It also delimits scope to ONE project and clearly distinguishes this from dashboard-wide or metric-only tools like boosthis_alerts and boosthis_session_summary.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a project's standing Vigilance verdict, watches, and evidence. It also specifies the required credentials and where to get them, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

All Boosthis tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct concern—alerts, budgets, jobs, promises, rules, crash risk, install/removal—and the descriptions are detailed enough to separate them. A few pairs, like verify_kit/verify_kit_install and recent_samples/session_summary, could be misselected without close reading, but they are not functionally identical.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the boosthis_ prefix and use snake_case, which creates a recognizable namespace. However, the second part mixes noun-only names (alerts, budgets, jobs, snapshot, trend), verb-based names (get_rule, remember_promise, verify_kit), and one sentence-style name (what_should_i_look_at_next), so there is no consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count3/5

At 24 tools, this sits squarely in the borderline-heavy range for an MCP server. Each tool does have a distinct role, but the surface feels large, especially with several overlapping read-only diagnostics that could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main observability lifecycle well: install, verify, monitor, diagnose, check trends, and record promises. Minor gaps exist—like no way to mutate alert states or delete promises through the MCP—but these appear intentional and are documented as dashboard-side actions.

Resources

Need Help?