Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AlgoChains MCP Server

AlgoChains MCP Server

Official
by AlgoChains
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

graphiti_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check Graphiti temporal knowledge-graph backend health: reports provider, Neo4j URI, group ID, and reachability. Fails closed with a recovery command when unavailable.

Instructions

Health probe for the Graphiti temporal knowledge-graph backend (Neo4j + graphiti-core, advisory/agent_memory). Reports provider, Neo4j URI, group_id, and reachability. Fails closed with graphiti_unavailable + recovery_command (per-host; not synced across machines).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "graphiti_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv22.7.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable details: failure behavior (fails closed with error info) and per-host recovery command not synced across machines.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines purpose and scope, second details output and failure mode. No redundancy.

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 probe without output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output fields, and error behavior. Minor omission: no mention of response format (e.g., JSON structure).

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no param info (none needed).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a health probe for the Graphiti temporal knowledge-graph backend, listing specific reported fields (provider, Neo4j URI, group_id, reachability) and distinguishing it from generic health tools.

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 for checking Graphiti health but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_tower_health or get_system_health, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools