Skip to main content
Glama

Test Monica connectivity

monica_health_check

Verify configured Monica CRM credentials to ensure proper connection and functionality for managing contacts, activities, and tasks.

Instructions

Verify that the configured Monica credentials work.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Inline handler function for the 'monica_health_check' tool. It invokes the MonicaClient's healthCheck method and returns a standardized success message confirming connectivity to the Monica CRM API.
    async () => {
      await client.healthCheck();
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text' as const,
            text: 'Successfully connected to Monica CRM API.'
          }
        ]
      };
    }
  • Registration of the 'monica_health_check' tool using the MCP server's registerTool method, providing tool metadata (title and description) and the inline handler.
    server.registerTool(
      'monica_health_check',
      {
        title: 'Test Monica connectivity',
        description: 'Verify that the configured Monica credentials work.'
      },
      async () => {
        await client.healthCheck();
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text' as const,
              text: 'Successfully connected to Monica CRM API.'
            }
          ]
        };
      }
    );
  • The MonicaClient.healthCheck() supporting method that performs the actual connectivity verification by making a lightweight API request to fetch contacts with limit=1.
    async healthCheck(): Promise<void> {
      await this.request('contacts', { searchParams: { limit: 1 } });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions verifying credentials but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what happens on failure (e.g., error messages), whether it's safe (non-destructive), or any rate limits. For a connectivity test tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Verify that the configured Monica credentials work.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output format. For a connectivity test, more context on what 'verify' entails (e.g., returns success/failure status) would improve completeness, but it's adequate for basic understanding.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4, as it adequately addresses the lack of inputs without unnecessary elaboration.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Verify that the configured Monica credentials work.' It uses specific verbs ('verify') and identifies the resource ('Monica credentials'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all Monica-related but serve different functions (e.g., managing contacts, activities).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context—testing connectivity when credentials are configured—but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., after setup) or exclusions (e.g., not for data operations). Sibling tools are all for data management, so this stands out as a diagnostic tool, but no direct comparison is provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Jacob-Stokes/monica-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server