health_check
Server health, version, and capabilities. No parameters.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
decisionmatrix-mcp
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only lists output topics (health, version, capabilities) and does not state whether it is read-only, requires auth, or has side effects. Minimal beyond the name.
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?
Two short sentences with no waste. The key information (what it returns) is front-loaded, and the parameter statement is succinct.
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 simple health check tool with no params and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts. It could be more detailed about return format, but it is sufficient for standard health-check usage.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description says 'No parameters,' which is redundant with the schema but does not conflict. No additional parameter meaning is needed.
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 clearly states what the tool provides: server health, version, and capabilities. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on analysis, decisions, and scoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
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
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_two is specifically for two-option head-to-head, create_decision is the main ranking tool with explanation, score_options returns the scored matrix without narrative, and sensitivity_analysis tests weight robustness. Health check and list_methods serve auxiliary but separate roles. No two tools are likely to be confused.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_decision, list_methods, score_options, compare_two), but sensitivity_analysis is a noun phrase without a verb, and compare_two uses a number instead of a noun. The snake_case style is consistent throughout, making the set readable overall.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its decision-analysis purpose. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow: creation, pairwise comparison, scoring, sensitivity analysis, and method discovery. The count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of multi-criteria decision making: creating a full decision, comparing exactly two options, scoring without the narrative, and testing robustness. Including list_methods for methodology details and health_check for server status rounds out the surface. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated domain.