health
Health check. Returns server status and optional echo.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| echo | No | Optional string to echo back |
cache-proxy
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the primary behavior: returning server status and echoing an optional string. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention safety, rate limits, or other side effects, but for a health check, the behavior is largely self-evident.
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 extremely concise at two short sentences. Every word is purposeful, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Health check') before the detail.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It explains the function and the optional parameter. It doesn't explain the response format, but for a health check, that is not essential.
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?
The schema describes the single parameter 'echo' with full coverage, and the description merely says 'optional echo', adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Health check') and the resource is the server status. It clearly indicates a read-only health probe. While it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling tool, the distinction is obvious given the different names.
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?
The phrase 'Health check' establishes a clear context: this is for verifying server status. It implies when to use it, and there are no exclusions. It doesn't name alternatives, but the sibling tool is different enough that additional guidance is unnecessary.
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
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: cache_query handles LLM requests through the proxy, while health is a simple status check. No ambiguity exists between them.
Naming Consistency4/5
cache_query follows a verb_noun pattern, but health is a single noun without an action prefix. Minor deviation, but names are clear and readable.
Tool Count4/5
With only 2 tools, the set feels slightly thin but appropriate for a focused proxy service. The core operation and a health check are the essentials.
Completeness4/5
The main lifecycle of a caching proxy is covered by cache_query. Missing cache-specific operations like invalidation could be useful but are not essential for basic proxy functionality.