Skip to main content
Glama

Check the setup

check_setup
Read-only

Check whether every signal this workspace raises has a way to be handled, and what repairs each missing link. Use it when signals go unhandled or your human asks what is missing in the setup; use list_signals for the open work itself. It checks the chain from the map to a recorded completion and lists each gap with a severity, the item it concerns and the single next step: a signal kind nothing handles (no approved, anchored playbook and no automation); open signals piling up unacted, or past their severity's time (4 hours urgent, 24 attention, 72 info); a playbook in draft, anchored on nothing, naming an undeclared operation or a missing object, or whose trigger is not wired; an operation with no action policy or no live key able to ask for it; a join a playbook crosses that is neither confirmed nor measured; a source with unknown owner or refresh cadence; an automation registered active with no run reported for 8 days; an uploaded system no connection keeps fresh; a plan past its due date. The answer leads with one job per playbook, signal kind or operation; every gap says what your human opens to fix it (with a link) and, where you can help, what to do. Changes nothing; a scoped key sees only gaps about objects in its scope. Maplith runs it hourly and raises each gap as a setup_gap signal until a check no longer finds it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: it enumerates the full taxonomy of gaps detected, tells the agent the answer leads with one job per playbook/signal kind/operation and carries a fix link plus a suggested action, and discloses that a scoped key sees only in-scope gaps. The hourly scheduling and setup_gap signal emission are behaviors no annotation could convey.

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?

It is well front-loaded, but the middle is a single sprawling sentence enumerating nine gap types in semicolon-delimited clauses, which is hard to scan and borders on a spec dump. 'Changes nothing' also restates readOnlyHint=true, the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return shape itself, and it does: it lists what each gap contains, how the answer is ordered, and what remediation guidance accompanies it. It also covers scope restriction and the fact that the tool mutates nothing.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description spends its words on output shape instead, which is the right trade for a zero-arg tool.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and scope: checking whether every raised signal has a handling path, plus the repairs for each missing link. It then explicitly separates itself from list_signals ('use list_signals for the open work itself'), so an agent can choose between the two without opening either schema.

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?

States explicit triggers ('when signals go unhandled or your human asks what is missing') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it. It also notes Maplith runs it hourly and raises setup_gap signals, which tells the agent when the check has already happened on its behalf.

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.

Resources