InfraNest

What is not set up yet

setup_gaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

What is missing between your things, the same list Home suggests from: websites and servers nobody monitors, servers without the agent, no alert channel, domains with auto-renew off or not renewing, mail domains whose DNS nobody checks, zones not linked to their domain, and providers your domains use that you have not connected. Each gap has a kind, its subjects (type, id, label and the signals it was ranked by, best first) and the fix that closes it (action, and monitors_each, what one subject costs against your plan's monitors). A gap is listed only when you may read the module its subjects belong to — domains, servers, DNS or monitoring. sources says which kinds were checked: one whose check failed reads failed, never "nothing missing". A gap is something not set up yet, never something wrong. Use it for "is my setup OK" or "what should I set up next": websites and servers nobody monitors, servers without the agent, no alert channel, domains not renewing, providers not connected. A gap is something to set up, never something broken. Each subject has the app_url where it is set up, and a website's fix_url opens the new-monitor form already filled in: give the person those links. A source with status failed was not checked.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "setup_gaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`organization_id`	No	The organization to read. Leave it out when the token reaches only one.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gaps`	No
`sources`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses important behavior: gaps are filtered by module read permission, `sources` reports per-kind status and a failed check reads `failed` rather than implying nothing is missing, and `fix.monitors_each` expresses cost against the plan's monitor allowance. It also tells the agent to surface `app_url`/`fix_url` links to the person, which is actionable behavioral guidance not present in annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The gap-type list is repeated almost verbatim three times, and the 'not set up yet, never wrong/broken' distinction is restated twice, as is the failed-source warning. The front-loaded opening is good, but the redundancy makes it substantially longer than needed.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description covers the key gaps an agent would otherwise miss: permission-based filtering, failed source checks, the subject/fix structure, and plan cost implications. Its main weakness is verbosity rather than missing information.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including the omit-when-single-org rule. The description adds nothing about `organization_id` beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description names the resource precisely (setup gaps) and enumerates the specific gap kinds: unmonitored websites/servers, servers without the agent, missing alert channels, non-renewing domains, unlinked zones, unconnected providers. It also draws a sharp line against sibling diagnostic tools by insisting a gap is 'not set up yet, never something wrong,' which separates it from findings/incident tools. It lacks a crisp single verb, but the scope is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('is my setup OK', 'what should I set up next') and an explicit exclusion (not for things that are broken). It does not name the alternative tool to use for actual problems, so the routing is implied rather than fully prescribed.

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

All InfraNest 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.