Skip to main content
Glama
FOX2920

WeWork MCP Server

by FOX2920

test_connection

Verify connectivity to the WeWork API to check service status and ensure data access for project management tasks.

Instructions

Test kết nối với WeWork API

Returns:
    Thông tin về trạng thái kết nối

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function for the 'test_connection' MCP tool. It tests the connection to WeWork API by checking client initialization and fetching projects. Decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration.
    @mcp.tool()
    def test_connection() -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Test kết nối với WeWork API
        
        Returns:
            Thông tin về trạng thái kết nối
        """
        try:
            if not wework_client:
                return {
                    'success': False,
                    'error': 'WeWork client not initialized',
                    'token_available': bool(WEWORK_ACCESS_TOKEN)
                }
            
            logger.info("Testing WeWork API connection")
            projects = wework_client.fetch_projects()
            
            return {
                'success': True,
                'connection_status': 'Connected',
                'projects_count': len(projects) if projects else 0,
                'token_available': bool(WEWORK_ACCESS_TOKEN),
                'sample_projects': [p.get('name', 'Unknown') for p in (projects[:3] if projects else [])]
            }
            
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error in test_connection: {e}")
            return {
                'success': False,
                'error': str(e),
                'token_available': bool(WEWORK_ACCESS_TOKEN)
            }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool tests a connection and returns connection status information, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details on what 'testing' entails (e.g., authentication checks, network pings), potential side effects, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second sentence describes the return value. There's no wasted text, and both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. It could be slightly improved by integrating the return info more seamlessly, but it's efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is adequate for a simple diagnostic tool. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., what 'connection status' includes) or error cases, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's action and output without unnecessary parameter details.

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's purpose: 'Test kết nối với WeWork API' (Test connection to WeWork API). It specifies the verb ('test') and resource ('connection to WeWork API'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which are all project-related, so this distinction is inherent but not explicitly stated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for testing connections, or how it relates to the sibling project tools. Usage is implied only by the purpose, with no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/FOX2920/Aplus-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server