n0brains

Server Health

health

Read-only

[META] Liveness + lightweight pipeline stats: uptime, signals in last 1h, current macro regime, classifier backlog, local-LLM classify breaker state (mode/open/consecutive fails). Mirrors REST GET /health with extra context. Pro-gated (per tools/call rule) — use REST /health for unauthenticated liveness.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`status`	No	ok
`timestamp`	Yes
`uptime_secs`	No
`current_regime`	No
`fp_dedup_active`	No
`llm_breaker_mode`	No
`llm_breaker_open`	No
`signal_count_last_1h`	No
`classifier_backlog_size`	No
`llm_breaker_consecutive_fails`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / llm_breaker_consecutive_fails

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Llm Breaker Consecutive Fails"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / llm_breaker_mode

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Llm Breaker Mode"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / llm_breaker_open

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Llm Breaker Open"
+}

First observedJul 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: it is Pro-gated (auth/permission requirement) and mirrors GET /health with extra context. It stops short of noting rate limits or caching.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the contents listed first, then the Mirroring and Pro-gating notes. Dense but every clause is informative; the enumeration of stats is slightly long but directly actionable.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, yet the description still usefully previews the key fields. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile and the Pro-gating note, an agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter syntax the description needs to explain.

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 the resource (server liveness/pipeline health) and enumerates exactly what it reports: uptime, signals in last 1h, macro regime, classifier backlog, and LLM breaker state (mode/open/consecutive fails). It also distinguishes itself from the REST endpoint it mirrors, so an agent can tell this apart from the data-returning siblings.

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?

It gives a clear routing rule: use REST /health for unauthenticated liveness, implying the MCP tool is the Pro/authenticated path. This is an explicit alternative with a selecting condition, though it does not compare against any MCP sibling since none performs a comparable health check.

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

All n0brains 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.

Resources

Need Help?