Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bc-rig

bc-rig

by Brad-Fullwood
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

doctor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies readiness of host, Android emulator, Playwright, and browser session to identify issues before automation.

Instructions

Check host, Android, Playwright, and project browser-session readiness.

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": "doctor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond listing what is checked. It doesn't confirm the read-only nature or mention lack of side effects.

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?

Description is concise (one sentence) and lists the components checked. It is appropriately sized but could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description tells what it checks but not what the result looks like (e.g., boolean, summary). This leaves the agent guessing about the return format, which is a gap.

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, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description adds no parameter info as none are needed.

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 checks readiness of host, Android, Playwright, and project browser-session. It distinguishes itself from action-oriented sibling tools but could be more specific about what 'readiness' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. As a diagnostic tool, it likely should be used before other actions, but the description does not indicate this.

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