Local-MCP-Bridge

by LorFerSilve

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

health_check

Check server health and availability while keeping host and project information private.

Instructions

Return basic server health without exposing host or project information.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`server`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`execution_enabled`	Yes
`filesystem_enabled`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (does not expose host/project info) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe what 'basic server health' includes or any potential failure modes. Adequate for a simple health check but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the primary action and the key constraint efficiently.

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 the tool has zero parameters, an output schema exists, and there are no siblings, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. The return format is handled by the output schema, and the boundary on sensitive data is clearly stated.

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, so the description need not elaborate on parameter meanings. Per the guidance, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and there is nothing further to explain.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('basic server health'), and it adds a boundary ('without exposing host or project information') that clarifies scope. With no siblings, it unambiguously identifies the tool's function.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but since there are no sibling tools, the intended use is self-evident. The mention of not exposing sensitive info implies it is safe for general use, but no direct context is given.

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

health_checkA