tower-mcp

heartbeat_worker

Announce this worker is online and ready to run tasks by calling every poll so the shared board shows live presence.

Instructions

Announce that this worker is online and ready to run tasks (call it every poll so the board shows live presence).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agentId": "<agentId>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "heartbeat_worker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`repo`	Yes
`repoId`	No
`runner`	No
`status`	No	ok
`agentId`	Yes
`projectId`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the cadence (every poll) and the observable effect (board shows live presence), but omits idempotency, permission requirements, and what happens if the call is skipped or fails.

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 a compact parenthetical for usage cadence. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool with six undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin on parameter meaning and operational prerequisites to let an agent call it correctly without inspecting the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Required fields (agentId, repo), the status enum (ok/low), and optional fields like runner and projectId are left entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: announce that this worker is online and ready to run tasks. It also clarifies the effect on the board. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling `heartbeat` tool, leaving some ambiguity about which to use.

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?

It explicitly says to call the tool every poll so the board shows live presence, which gives clear usage cadence. It does not say when not to use it or mention any alternative tools like `heartbeat`.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.