Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@mhdd_24/api-versioning-mcp

@mhdd_24/api-versioning-mcp

by Mhdd-24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

apiver_status

Verifies API versioning service health and readiness so you can confirm the MCP server is available before compatibility analysis.

Instructions

Health check for API Versioning MCP.

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": "apiver_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but for a zero-parameter health check the surface is small. 'Health check' implies a safe, read-only probe, yet the description says nothing about the response shape, failure behavior, or whether it is idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is arguably too terse for the behavior it should disclose, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at what a successful or failed health check returns. For a trivial zero-param probe the omission is minor, but an agent gets no failure semantics.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific function (health check) on a specific resource (the API Versioning MCP server), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the siblings apiver_compare and apiver_strategy, which the description never mentions.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool, whether it should be called before other operations, or how it relates to the sibling tools. The only implied usage is generic 'check if the server is alive'.

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