AI Team OS

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

os_health_check

Verifies the AI Team OS API service is running by querying its team list endpoint, then reports token-attribution coverage so you can confirm backend readiness.

Instructions

Check the health status of the AI Team OS API service.

Verifies the API service is running normally by accessing the team list endpoint, and reports one line of token-attribution coverage alongside it. When the API is local and on the port this MCP server manages, it also reconciles the shared PID file: a single healthy listener on that port is written into the PID file if the file points elsewhere.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`json_scan_rows`	No	Rows read per table by the json_integrity scan, newest first. -1 keeps the default window (10,000); 0 reads every row, for a one-off full check of an old database (seconds on a large one).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.15.0Sep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / json_scan_rows

Added value: +{
+  "default": -1,
+  "description": "Rows read per table by the json_integrity scan, newest\nfirst. -1 keeps the default window (10,000); 0 reads every row, for a\none-off full check of an old database (seconds on a large one).",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedv1.9.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious side effect: it writes the shared PID file when a single healthy listener is found and the file points elsewhere. It does not cover permissions, failure semantics, or whether the check is safe to call concurrently, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the PID-file caveat; no filler. The final sentence is dense but each clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. Purpose and side effects are covered; only the mismatch between the described work and the undocumented json_integrity scan leaves a small hole.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter (json_scan_rows) is well documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about it and, notably, never mentions the json_integrity scan that this parameter actually controls, so it does not compensate for that conceptual gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the health status of the AI Team OS API service') and adds the concrete mechanism (team list endpoint, token-attribution coverage line, PID-file reconciliation). It is clearly distinct from siblings like team_status or os_restart_api, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the notion of a health check; the description never says when to run this versus os_restart_api or team_status, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but with an obvious gap.

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

Deploy Server