Skip to main content
Glama

check_server

Test MCP server functionality by running commands to verify tool capabilities and catch issues before deployment.

Instructions

Run checks against a specific MCP server by command. Example: check_server({ command: 'npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/server-everything' })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYesThe command to launch the MCP server (e.g. 'npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/server-everything').
argsNoAdditional arguments for the command.

Implementation Reference

  • The `check_server` MCP tool is defined here, which validates input arguments and calls `runTarget` to perform the checks.
    server.tool(
      "check_server",
      "Run checks against a specific MCP server by command. Example: check_server({ command: 'npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/server-everything' })",
      {
        command: z.string().describe("The command to launch the MCP server (e.g. 'npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/server-everything')."),
        args: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe("Additional arguments for the command."),
      },
      async ({ command, args }) => {
        try {
          const target = {
            targetId: command,
            adapter: "local-process" as const,
            command,
            args: args ?? [],
            timeoutMs: 15_000,
          };
          const artifact = await runTarget(target);
          const outDir = defaultRunsDirectory();
          const outPath = await writeRunArtifact(artifact, outDir);
          return {
            content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `${formatRun(artifact)}\n\nArtifact saved: ${outPath}` }],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          const msg = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
          return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Error checking server: ${msg}` }], isError: true };
        }
      },
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is an active 'run' operation, it doesn't specify what 'checks' entail, whether this requires specific permissions, what side effects might occur, or what the expected output format is. The example helps but doesn't provide comprehensive behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences - one stating the purpose and one providing an example. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality first. The example earns its place by demonstrating proper usage.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic purpose and an example but lacks important context about what 'checks' actually perform, what results to expect, and how this differs from sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's example shows command usage but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Run checks') and target ('against a specific MCP server by command'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (diff_runs, get_last_run, scan), which all seem related to server checking/analysis but with different approaches.

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 its siblings (diff_runs, get_last_run, scan). It includes an example of usage but doesn't specify appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this particular checking method.

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/KryptosAI/mcp-observatory'

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