health_check
Server status.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
resilienceoracle
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Server status.' does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what response format to expect, or any failure/side-effect behavior. It is not misleading but is almost entirely uninformative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified to the point of being more of a label than a description; brevity is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, but this sacrifices necessary action clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns. 'Server status.' does not specify the response structure, success/failure indicators, or any side effects. Given the low complexity, a one-sentence description could suffice, but this one omits essential behavioral details.
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 input schema has zero parameters, and with 100% schema description coverage there is nothing left for the description to clarify. The description's silence on parameters is acceptable and the baseline of 4 applies.
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 noun phrase without an action verb, so it does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, check, or report). It largely restates the tool name 'health_check' and provides no resource specificity beyond 'server', failing to distinguish it from the 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 Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as recovery_status or crisis_plan_check. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any selection criteria.
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
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct function: registration, BIA setting, test logging, readiness status, specific compliance checks, and evidence collection. Even the check-type tools (bcm_gap_analysis, crisis_plan_check, rto_rpo_check) address clearly separated aspects.
Naming Consistency4/5
All names use lowercase with underscores, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (register_system, set_bia, test_register). A few noun-only names (evidence_bundle, scenario_library, recovery_status) deviate slightly, but the style remains consistent and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a BCM/DR compliance server. Each tool serves a necessary part of the workflow—system registration, BIA, testing, checks, and evidence—without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the core BCM lifecycle: register systems, set BIA, run tests, check compliance, and bundle evidence. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for systems or BIA), but these are workaround-able using set_bia and are not critical for the stated purpose.