Skip to main content
Glama

health

Verify PayBot MCP Server connectivity to ensure automated USDC payment infrastructure is operational for transaction processing.

Instructions

Check if the PayBot server is reachable

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The health tool handler that checks if the PayBot server is reachable by making a GET request to /health endpoint
    // Tool: health
    server.tool('health', 'Check if the PayBot server is reachable', {}, async () => {
      const result = await paybotRequest('GET', '/health');
      return { content: [{ type: 'text' as const, text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }] };
    });
  • src/index.ts:92-96 (registration)
    Registration of the health tool with the MCP server, including tool name, description, and handler
    // Tool: health
    server.tool('health', 'Check if the PayBot server is reachable', {}, async () => {
      const result = await paybotRequest('GET', '/health');
      return { content: [{ type: 'text' as const, text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }] };
    });
  • The paybotRequest helper function used by the health tool to make authenticated HTTP requests to the PayBot API
    async function paybotRequest<T>(method: string, path: string, body?: unknown): Promise<T> {
      const response = await fetch(`${PAYBOT_BASE_URL}${path}`, {
        method,
        headers: {
          'Content-Type': 'application/json',
          Authorization: `Bearer ${PAYBOT_API_KEY}`,
        },
        body: body ? JSON.stringify(body) : undefined,
      });
    
      if (!response.ok) {
        const errorBody = await response.text().catch(() => 'Unknown error');
        throw new Error(`PayBot API error (${response.status}): ${errorBody}`);
      }
    
      return (await response.json()) as T;
    }
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's core behavior (reachability check) but doesn't specify what 'reachable' means (e.g., network connectivity, service status), expected response format, timeout behavior, or authentication requirements. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and appropriately sized for a simple health check tool.

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 zero-parameter health check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details about what constitutes 'reachable', expected response format, or error conditions. Given the tool's simplicity, it's minimally complete but could benefit from slightly more behavioral 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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 tool's purpose as checking server reachability with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('PayBot server'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_payment, list_payments, and pay by focusing on health monitoring rather than payment operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential alternative health-check tools.

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?

The description implies usage context - when you need to verify server availability before attempting payment operations. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear given the sibling tools are all payment-related.

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/RBKunnela/paybot-mcp'

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