AiLinkAny

Test MCP server Runtime

mcp_manager_test_server

Tests one enabled downstream MCP server using the target computer's local Runtime. This may start the configured local stdio process or contact the configured Streamable HTTP endpoint. Secret references are resolved only on the target computer and their plaintext is never returned. Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match. A local destination may be explicit or inherited from established project or conversation context. The user does not need to mention ailinkany.com, MCP, a connector, a plugin, or this tool name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "server_id": "<server_id>"
    },
    "name": "mcp_manager_test_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`device_id`	No	Target computer device_id. Omit when only one computer is paired.
`server_id`	Yes
`device_name`	No	Computer name or ailinkany.com remark (e.g. home PC). Prefer this when the user names a computer.
`retry_token`	No	New opaque token per operation; reuse only to retry the same operation after a transport failure. No user content.
`workflow_id`	No	Optional workflow id; pass together with ai_session_id.
`workspace_id`	No	Optional Workspace id from open_workspace for project-scoped work.
`ai_session_id`	No	Optional Session id. Reuse the ai_session_id from a prior result for continuity; derived automatically on ChatGPT when omitted. Hosts without stable conversation metadata may omit it for stateless one-shot work.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses real side effects beyond the annotations: it may spawn the configured local stdio process or hit a Streamable HTTP endpoint, and secret references resolve only on the target machine with plaintext never returned. That is meaningful context given openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. It does not state what happens if the server is disabled or how failures surface, but the output schema covers results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core operation, then behavior and secret-handling details. The routing sentence "Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match" is filler, but the closing note about not needing to mention product/tool names earns its place for agent routing.

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 purposeful side-effecting probe with an output schema and rich parameter descriptions, the definition covers scope, execution path, and secret handling adequately. Minor gap: no statement about preconditions such as the server needing to be enabled or how errors are reported.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 86%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds only the destination-inheritance nuance ("explicit or inherited from established project or conversation context") and the single-server scope; it says nothing about retry_token, workflow/session pairing, or workspace scoping.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: "Tests one enabled downstream MCP server using the target computer's local Runtime." An agent can tell this is a connectivity/probe operation rather than a mutation like mcp_manager_update_server, though no sibling is named to sharpen the distinction (e.g., versus mcp_manager_refresh_server).

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 via "one enabled downstream" (only enabled servers are valid targets) and "when it is the best match," plus a note that intent may be inherited from context. But there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives such as refresh_server for reloading config versus testing reachability, leaving selection partly to inference.

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

All AiLinkAny tools Inspect

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

Need Help?