health
Liveness.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
hookpulse
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Liveness' only implies a read-only health check but does not state side effects, return values, failure behavior, or any operational detail that an agent would need to interpret the result.
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?
A single word is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no useful structure, and while short, it fails to convey sufficient meaning.
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?
Even for a simple health-check tool, the description is inadequate. Without an output schema or any elaboration on what 'liveness' means in terms of response or behavior, an agent cannot know how to use the result.
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 and the schema already covers everything, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 'Liveness' is a noun that essentially restates the tool name 'health' without specifying any action or resource. It is a tautology rather than a concrete statement of what the tool does, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like ping_ingest.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus any alternative. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools.
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
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: endpoint lifecycle, guest tokens, events, templates, billing, contact, health, and status feeds are clearly separated. Even related tools like get_endpoint and list_endpoints have clearly different scopes.
Naming Consistency3/5
The create_/get_/list_/delete_ prefix pattern is consistent for resource operations, but several tools are bare nouns (api_index, billing, contact, health, status_feed_url) and status_feed_rotate reverses the expected verb-object order. The mixed style reduces predictability.
Tool Count5/5
Fourteen tools is within the ideal scope for an API-focused server, and each tool provides a meaningful capability for using the HookPulse service. The count feels complete without being bloated.
Completeness4/5
The endpoint lifecycle is well covered with create, get, list, and delete, plus supporting features like events, templates, status feeds, and billing. There is no explicit update/pause endpoint operation, but that may be outside the dead-man endpoint model, so the gap is minor.