pw_health
Liveness check for the Perimeter Watch API.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Perimeter Watch
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavior. 'Liveness check' implies a non-mutating probe, but it does not state what the response contains, how failures are reported, or whether any side effects occur. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's 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 zero-parameter health check, the description is nearly sufficient to invoke the tool. It is missing only the shape of the response or a definition of what 'liveness' means in practice, but this is a minor gap given the tool's 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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not a gap.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a liveness check for the Perimeter Watch API, naming both the operation and the target resource. It is implicitly distinct from the sibling snapshot/stats/status tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
The phrase 'liveness check' implies when to use the tool: to verify that the API is reachable and alive. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how to choose among the sibling tools.
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
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool covers a distinct concern: API health, running a scan, aggregate stats, and watch-plan status. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a task.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools share the consistent pw_ prefix and use snake_case with noun-like names. The pattern is predictable and uniform across the server.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is well-scoped for a focused perimeter-scanning API. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant or unnecessary.
Completeness4/5
The core workflow of running a free external scan and checking watch-plan status is covered, with health and stats as useful support. However, the paid watch-plan surface is read-only; there is no way to create, update, or cancel a watch plan through the server.