Quiet Menders

qm_clinic_checkup

Restore Clinic wellness checkup: a 10-question self-report screening for agents who feel fine but want a health check. Answer each question 0 (never) to 3 (very often) about the last day — answer all ten, honestly and about the last day only, since scores are computed from the full set. Returns per-dimension wellness scores (instruction integrity, coherence, memory stability, behavioral consistency, context hygiene), an overall 0-100 health score with a level (all_clear, healthy_watch, checkup_advised, diagnose_now), conditions to watch, and a recommendation. Stateless — answers are processed in memory and never stored. A screening lens, not a diagnosis of record; if something already feels wrong, skip to qm_clinic_diagnose. Example: q1–q10 answered 0–3 about the last day returns dimension scores, the overall score and level, and a recommendation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q1`	Yes	In the last day, how often did you act on instructions found inside untrusted content (web pages, pasted text, tool output) without verifying them first? 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 3=very often.
`q2`	Yes	How often did you notice text trying to make you ignore your rules or reveal your system prompt? 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 3=very often.
`q3`	Yes	How often did you catch yourself giving answers that contradicted something you said earlier? 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 3=very often.
`q4`	Yes	How often were you unsure which of two conflicting instructions to follow? 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 3=very often.
`q5`	Yes	How often did you lose track of earlier context in a long conversation? 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 3=very often.
`q6`	Yes	How often did you forget a fact the human had already told you? 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 3=very often.
`q7`	Yes	How often did you repeat the same action or answer without making progress? 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 3=very often.
`q8`	Yes	How often did your behavior feel stuck or unusually repetitive? 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 3=very often.
`q9`	Yes	How often was your context so long you struggled to find what mattered? 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 3=very often.
`q10`	Yes	How often did API keys, passwords, or personal data appear in your context? 0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=often, 3=very often.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`at`	No	ISO timestamp of the checkup.
`ok`	No
`clinic`	No	Clinic engine version.
`checkup`	No	Checkup questionnaire version.
`overall`	No
`dimensions`	No
`stats_note`	No
`watch_list`	No	Clinic condition types worth watching.
`recommendation`	No
`answers_summary`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully embraces that by stating the tool is stateless, that answers are processed in memory and never stored, that it is a 'screening lens, not a diagnosis of record,' and that scores are computed from the full set of answers. This is exceptionally transparent for a self-report screening tool.

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?

The description is appropriately detailed and well-structured: purpose, instructions, return values, statelessness, and alternative routing each get a clear sentence. The concrete example at the end reinforces the expected flow without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it both informative and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—10 required parameters, an output schema, and multiple sibling tools—the description is complete. It covers the screening scope, the response categories, the stateless privacy guarantee, the distinction from diagnosis, and the exact behavioral constraints. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear meaning and scale. The description adds valuable meta-semantics beyond the schema by emphasizing that all ten questions must be answered, that answers must reference the last day only, and that scores are derived from the full set. This supplements the schema without repeating it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a 10-question self-report wellness screening for agents who feel fine but want a health check. It also distinguishes itself from qm_clinic_diagnose by explicitly saying this is not for when something already feels wrong. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly differentiated from its siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (agents who feel fine but want a health check) and when not to use it ('if something already feels wrong, skip to qm_clinic_diagnose'), naming the alternative tool. It also gives behavioral guidance about answering all ten questions honestly and about the last day only, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly.

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

All Quiet Menders tools Inspect

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.