health_check
Server status.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
driftoracle
TDQS
C2/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Server status.' reveals nothing about side effects, read-only nature, authentication requirements, return format, or error handling. It is completely opaque.
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 description is extremely terse, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not convey enough information to be useful, so the brevity fails to earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns. 'Server status.' does not describe the response structure, possible status values, or any operational details, making the tool incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters to document, no additional semantics are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Server status.' is a vague restatement of the tool name, essentially paraphrasing 'health_check' without providing a specific verb or resource. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'ping', which could also check server availability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or complementary tools, leaving the agent without decision support.
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
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detection tools differentiated by drift type. Minor overlap exists between health_check and ping, as well as control_drift and evidence_drift sharing degraded controls, but descriptions provide enough context to avoid confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming pattern is mixed: detect_* tools consistently use verb_noun, but drift_history and drift_status follow noun_noun, and full_drift_scan is a compound noun. While readable, the inconsistency makes the set feel less cohesive.
Tool Count4/5
15 tools is slightly above average but justified by the broad scope of drift detection and management. Each tool earns its place, covering detection, viewing, configuration, and remediation without obvious redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full drift lifecycle: detection (multiple types), full scan, history, status, configuration, manual marking/resolving, and automated remediation. Minor gaps like lacking a single-event detail view are not critical for core workflows.