health_checkCheck server health and connectivity.
Returns: Dictionary with health status including: - status: "healthy" or "unhealthy" - version: Server version - environment: Current environment (dev/staging/prod)
| 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.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context beyond this by indicating the tool also checks 'connectivity' and returns environment/version info. It does not contradict annotations and gives useful insight into the tool's non-destructive nature and response fields.
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?
The description is succinct, with a clear front-loaded purpose and a bulleted list of return fields. Every sentence adds value, no filler or redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a simple health check tool.
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 the tool has no parameters, annotations cover read-only safety, and an output schema exists for return values, the description fully contextualizes the tool's purpose and behavior. It is complete for the tool's simplicity, and the explicit mention of connectivity and environment rounds out the context.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is effectively complete with 100% coverage. The description need not add parameter details; baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'server health and connectivity', which clearly states the tool's function. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on camping/gear tasks rather than server diagnostics.
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 implies usage as a server health diagnostic tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. There is no naming of sibling tools or 'use this when' guidance, though the purpose is self-evident given the sibling set.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (search, details, availability, weather, etc.), but build_packing_list and get_gear_for_campground both deal with gear recommendations, and check_safety overlaps with the safety section in get_campground_details. However, the descriptions are detailed enough for an agent to choose correctly.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (build_, calculate_, check_, compare_, find_, get_, prepare_, search_) with the exception of health_check, which reverses the order and breaks the pattern. This is a minor deviation.
13 tools is well-scoped for a comprehensive outdoor trip planning server, covering search, details, availability, weather, safety, gear, and reservations without being excessive or sparse.
The server provides end-to-end coverage for planning a camping trip: search and filter campgrounds, get rich details, check availability, prepare reservations, evaluate safety, weather, drive times, gear recommendations, and packing lists. The only missing capability (direct booking) is intentionally excluded due to operator restrictions.