Checks that the Strale API is reachable and the MCP server is running. Call this before a series of capability executions to verify connectivity, or when troubleshooting connection issues. Returns server status, version, tool count, capability count, solution count, and a timestamp. No API key required.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the returned fields (status, version, tool count, capability count, solution count, timestamp) and authentication requirements. It could explicitly state that it has no side effects, but 'Checks' strongly implies a safe read-only operation.
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?
Three sentences deliver complete information: purpose, usage timing, return payload, and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a zero-parameter health check with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It addresses what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and access requirements. Nothing else is needed.
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 zero parameters, so the schema fully covers this aspect and the description correctly adds no parameter details. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing to explain.
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 ('Checks') and clearly identifies the resource (Strale API reachability and MCP server status). Its scope is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on transactions, searches, and profiles, making it unambiguous as a health check.
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?
Explicitly states when to invoke the tool: 'before a series of capability executions to verify connectivity' or 'when troubleshooting connection issues.' It also notes that no API key is required, giving a clear prerequisite.
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 addresses a distinct function: balance checks, capability execution, onboarding, methodology docs, connectivity, registry search, transaction history, trust profiling, and on-chain assurance. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
All tools follow the consistent pattern of a 'strale_' prefix with lowercase snake_case names (e.g., strale_balance, strale_getting_started). The naming is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of exposing core interactions with a 290+ capability API. It avoids bloat while providing all necessary operations without being too sparse.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: discovery (strale_search), execution (strale_execute), financial management (strale_balance), audit (strale_transaction), trust evaluation (strale_trust_profile), specialized on-chain checks (strale_web3_assurance), plus support functions (getting_started, ping, methodology). No obvious gaps exist.
