Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
web-mcp

web-mcp

by ManiaSacha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

source_health

Identify healthy, late, and error-producing feeds to monitor content pipeline reliability.

Instructions

Check which feeds are healthy, late, or producing errors.

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": "source_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The read-only verb 'Check' and the enumerated status categories communicate expected behavior and outcome shape. It does not elaborate on underlying mechanics (e.g., network requests), but for a zero-parameter status query this is not a critical omission.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds semantic value, and no redundant details are included.

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?

The tool is maximally simple: no params, no required inputs, and an output schema exists. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool without missing context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers invocation inputs. Baseline 4 applies because there is no parameter information for the description to add.

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 ('Check') with a clear resource ('feeds') and defines the exact health outcomes ('healthy, late, or producing errors'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_feeds (plain listing) and refresh (manual trigger) without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The context is clear: call this when the agent needs feed health status rather than feed content or management. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or alternative tools, but the single-purpose phrasing leaves little ambiguity.

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