oj_healthReport local readiness and the latest observed AtCoder page-read status without probing upstream.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context: it reports local readiness and cached status without upstream probing, implying no side effects or network calls, which complements the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and constraints. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It could mention the scope (AtCoder provider) explicitly, but the title covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description carries no burden. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reports local readiness and the latest observed status without upstream probing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like oj_fetch_problem or oj_search_problems that involve data retrieval or actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates it's a local check, implying usage when a quick, non-network health status is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: reporting capabilities, fetching problem statements, checking health, and searching problems. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the 'oj_' prefix pattern. While one uses a verb-noun format (oj_fetch_problem) and others use nouns (oj_capabilities, oj_health) or noun-verb (oj_search_problems), the overall pattern is recognizable and consistent.
With 4 tools, the server is slightly lean but well-scoped for a read-only interface to AtCoder problems. The tools cover essential operations without unnecessary bloat.
Given the explicit focus on an audited anonymous read surface, the tools provide necessary operations: fetching, searching, health, and capabilities. Missing write operations are intentionally excluded, so the set is reasonably complete for its domain.