Health Check
health_checkCheck the health status of the numbrU API
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
client-compass
by com.numbru
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Check health status'), but does not disclose additional details such as response format or what constitutes healthy status. Adequate for a trivial 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. No wasted words; appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the tool name—it specifies the resource ('numbrU API'). Baseline is 4, but the description is only slightly more informative than the title.
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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and the resource 'health status of the numbrU API'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings, none of which are health checks.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it is a simple health check and the context implies usage for API availability verification. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
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
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (create, retrieve, chat). However, generate_compass overlaps with the automatic compass generation in create_person and batch_create_persons, potentially causing confusion about when to use it separately.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_person, get_chat_messages, update_profile). The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
11 tools is appropriate for a client management system with profile, chat, and compass features. The scope is well-defined and each tool serves a clear function without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness3/5
The tool set supports create, read, and search operations for people, but lacks update and delete functionality. Also, there is no explicit tool to update a client's compass after creation, and chat management is limited to send and retrieve without edit/delete.