Skip to main content
Glama
I4cTime

q-ring

by I4cTime
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

health_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a read-only sweep across secrets in a scope to report counts of healthy, stale, and expired items plus current audit anomalies. Use for a quick 'is everything OK?' status check.

Instructions

[health] Run a single read-only sweep over every secret in the requested scope and report counts of healthy/stale/expired secrets plus any current audit anomalies. Use as the default 'is everything OK?' command for an agent or operator; prefer check_project to validate manifest compliance specifically, detect_anomalies for audit-only triage, and agent_scan for multi-project JSON output or optional auto-rotation. Read-only — never writes. Returns a multi-line text summary: header counts (Total / Healthy / Stale / Expired / No decay / Anomalies), then per-secret EXPIRED: / STALE: issue lines, then per-anomaly [type] description lines.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgIdNoOrganization identifier for org-scoped secrets. Required only when scope='org'. Example: 'acme-corp'.
scopeNoWhere the secret lives. 'global' = user keyring (default if omitted on reads), 'project' = scoped to projectPath, 'team' = team-shared (needs teamId), 'org' = org-shared (needs orgId).
teamIdNoTeam identifier for team-scoped secrets. Required only when scope='team'. Example: 'acme-platform'.
projectPathNoAbsolute path to the project root for project-scoped secrets and policy resolution. Defaults to the MCP server's current working directory when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.11.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / orgId / description
      Previous value: -"Org identifier for org-scoped secrets"New value: +"Organization identifier for org-scoped secrets. Required only when scope='org'. Example: 'acme-corp'."
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectPath / description
      Previous value: -"Project root path for project-scoped secrets"New value: +"Absolute path to the project root for project-scoped secrets and policy resolution. Defaults to the MCP server's current working directory when omitted."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"Scope: global, project, team, or org"New value: +"Where the secret lives. 'global' = user keyring (default if omitted on reads), 'project' = scoped to projectPath, 'team' = team-shared (needs teamId), 'org' = org-shared (needs orgId)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / teamId / description
      Previous value: -"Team identifier for team-scoped secrets"New value: +"Team identifier for team-scoped secrets. Required only when scope='team'. Example: 'acme-platform'."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.11.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / orgId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Org identifier for org-scoped secrets",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"Scope: global or project"New value: +"Scope: global, project, team, or org"
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "global",
-  "project"
-]New value: +[
+  "global",
+  "project",
+  "team",
+  "org"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / teamId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Team identifier for team-scoped secrets",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with 'Read-only — never writes' and, more valuably, discloses the return shape in detail since no output schema exists. It doesn't add permission/auth or rate-limit context, so it stops 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by alternatives and then return behavior, with no wasted sentences. The return-format enumeration is the longest part but earns its place because no output schema exists; it is slightly dense but well ordered.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given four optional params, a 100%-covered schema, and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: the structure of the multi-line text summary (header counts, EXPIRED/STALE lines, anomaly lines). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents orgId, teamId, projectPath, and the scope enum with defaults and required-when conditions. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so this is the baseline 3 where structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Run a single read-only sweep over every secret') plus the exact output content (healthy/stale/expired counts and audit anomalies). It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by naming check_project, detect_anomalies, and agent_scan and the conditions that separate them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly positions the tool as the default 'is everything OK?' command, then routes agents to alternatives with reasons: check_project for manifest compliance, detect_anomalies for audit-only triage, agent_scan for multi-project JSON or auto-rotation. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives coverage the dimension rewards.

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