Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Code Gym AWS Emulator MCP

Code Gym AWS Emulator MCP

by B11-Health
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

emulator_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check local HTTPS emulator health to confirm the sandbox is reachable and diagnose connectivity or startup problems before running AWS workflows.

Instructions

Check local HTTPS emulator health

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": "emulator_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0-beta.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which covers the safety and locality profile. The word "local" restates the closed-world annotation, and the description adds no new behavioral context such as whether it probes a live endpoint or what a failure looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short phrase with no filler and the key qualifiers (local, HTTPS, health) front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is a fragment that reads more like a title than guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a health check returns (a boolean, a status string, diagnostic detail) and it does none of that. For a zero-parameter tool the main open question is the result shape, and the definition leaves it unresolved.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Check local HTTPS emulator health" gives a verb and a resource, so the basic action is recoverable. However, it does not distinguish this from near-identical siblings such as emulator_status, emulator_doctor, and emulator_self_test, leaving the boundary of what "health" means unclear.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when a sibling like emulator_status or emulator_doctor would be preferable. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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