health_check
Server status, API connectivity, supported features.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
hoteloracle
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only status check by mentioning server status and connectivity, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or describe response formats. With no annotations available, the description carries the burden but only partially discloses 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?
The description is extremely concise, using three short phrases to convey the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.
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 zero-parameter health check tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: server status, API connectivity, and supported features. It falls short of specifying exact return values or structure, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
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 schema is empty. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds nothing about parameter semantics because none are needed.
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 clearly identifies the tool's scope: server status, API connectivity, and supported features. Although it lacks an explicit verb, it is unambiguous and distinguishes from the hotel-related sibling tools.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer that it is a general health/status check.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of hotel research: neighborhoods, cheapest options, server health, hotel details, price trends, general search, nearby attractions, and cross-site price comparison. There is no functional overlap between tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a consistent snake_case convention with descriptive names. Most are noun_noun or adjective_noun patterns (area_guide, hotel_details), with only price_compare using a verb form. The pattern is clear and predictable, though not perfectly uniform.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools cover the full spectrum of hotel information retrieval without being excessive or sparse. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function for travelers researching accommodations.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides end-to-end coverage for hotel research: searching, filtering by price, comparing across booking sites, viewing price calendars, checking nearby places, and getting detailed reviews. There are no obvious gaps for the intended information-only use case.