Skip to main content
Glama

Toolweather

by io.github.toolweather
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

is_safe_to_call

Check whether an MCP server (registry name or URL), and optionally one of its tools, is safe to call right now. Returns verdict safe/caution/unsafe, live status, latency, last tool change (breaking?), spec readiness, auth info, checked_at and age_seconds. Results older than 5 minutes are re-verified with a live handshake.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNo
freshNoforce a live handshake now (otherwise automatic when the stored check is >5 min old)
serverYes
bearer_tokenNooptional: your own token for this server, for a one-off authenticated initialize + tools/list check. Used once, never stored or logged.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / bearer_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "optional: your own token for this server, for a one-off authenticated initialize + tools/list check. Used once, never stored or logged.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / fresh
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "force a live handshake now (otherwise automatic when the stored check is >5 min old)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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: it enumerates the verdict values (safe/caution/unsafe) and the returned fields, and discloses a non-obvious caching behavior ('results older than 5 minutes are re-verified with a live handshake'). Remaining gaps are the network side effect of a live handshake against an arbitrary server and any rate-limit/error behavior.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the refresh policy. No filler and every clause adds operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must do all the work, and it does: it covers what is checked, the verdict semantics, the returned payload, token handling, and the live-verification freshness rule. An agent has enough to call this correctly without opening anything else.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates for both undocumented parameters by explaining that 'server' accepts a registry name or URL and that 'tool' optionally narrows the check to one tool. 'fresh' and 'bearer_token' are already documented in the schema, so nothing is left ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check whether an MCP server ... is safe to call right now') and pins down the scope: registry name or URL, optionally narrowing to one tool. An agent can distinguish this from the watch/unwatch/key siblings solely from the description.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'right now' plus the freshness policy, so an agent can infer this is a pre-flight check rather than a monitoring tool. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use watch_server instead to track changes over time).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Toolweather toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources