Check API Status
statusRead-only
Check Warp API health and version. Also validates your API key if one is configured.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
warp-agent-mcp
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it validates API keys, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence contributes meaning.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the main functions, though return format is not described.
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?
No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly identifies the lack of input requirements.
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 the tool checks Warp API health and version, and validates API key. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like booking or quote tools.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied from the tool's nature as a health check, but no guidance is provided.
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
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Overlapping tools like batch_quote, compare_modes, and per-mode quote tools are clearly differentiated by their scope and use cases. Batch vs single booking are also distinct.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., batch_quote, list_bookings). A few like 'analytics' and 'events' are noun-only but still clear. Overall consistent with minor deviations.
Tool Count4/5
26 tools cover a broad logistics domain including quoting, booking, tracking, documents, and account management. While slightly heavy, each tool serves a specific function and the count is reasonable for the scope.
Completeness5/5
The tool set appears complete for freight operations: all major modes quoted, single/batch/multi-stop booking, tracking, documents, invoices, history, and account management. No obvious missing CRUD operations.