ping
Health check and a manifest of what good_wook can do.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
good_wook
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Describes it as health check and manifest, but doesn't detail side effects, auth, or return structure. Adequate for a simple ping.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys core purpose.
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?
For a ping tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects (health and capabilities). Missing return format details, but acceptable given simplicity.
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?
No parameters, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no param info, but that's acceptable.
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?
Clearly states it's a health check and manifest, with distinct verb+resource. Differentiates from sibling tools that focus on specific show data.
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?
Implied usage for checking tool availability and capabilities, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings.
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.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: setlist retrieval, jam chart, show search, song stats, venue info, etc. No overlap or ambiguity among the 11 tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use consistent snake_case with descriptive verb_noun patterns (e.g., 'get_setlist', 'search_shows', 'song_history'). The outlier 'ping' is a standard health check name.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—covering setlist, song, venue, and show operations without clutter or sparsity.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core Phish show information comprehensively: setlists, song stats, jam charts, venue data, and show search. Minor gaps (e.g., absence of review or attendance tools) are acceptable.