Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Glyph Hold MCP

Glyph Hold MCP

by Dosk3n
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

glyphhold_health

Check Glyph Hold service health to verify the HTTP API is reachable and ready for memory and secret management requests.

Instructions

Check service health.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "glyphhold_healthDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden yet says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it requires auth, whether it can fail/timeout, or what 'health' comprises (latency, dependency status, version). One sentence of mutation-free intent is implied but never confirmed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely tight — the brevity comes from omission, not from careful compression.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the shape of the health response (status field, boolean vs. structured payload, degraded states). For a diagnostic tool whose entire value is the return value, leaving that undefined is a real gap, even given the tool's simplicity.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain — baseline 4 applies. The description could note that it accepts no arguments, but nothing is missing that an agent would need in order to fill the schema.

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?

States a verb ('Check') and a resource ('service health'), so the basic action is identifiable, but 'service' is never defined — it doesn't say whether this covers the memory store, the secrets vault, or the whole backend. No sibling duplicates a health check, so it is minimally distinguishable, but only by elimination.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this — e.g. before a batch of memory operations, after a suspected outage, or as a connectivity preflight. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned; the agent must guess at the trigger.

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