Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dhp

dhp

by SIDDARTHAREDDY8
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

dhp_heartbeat

Prove a worker is alive during durable agent handoffs; call frequently so a silent worker is treated as dead and standby resume can start.

Instructions

Heartbeat: prove the worker is alive. Call frequently; a silent worker is assumed dead.

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": {
      "handoff_id": "<handoff_id>",
      "worker_id": "<worker_id>"
    },
    "name": "dhp_heartbeat"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
worker_idYes
handoff_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral consequence: liveness is inferred and a silent worker is treated as dead. It omits whether the call needs to be from the same process/session holding handoff_id, and whether missed heartbeats trigger recovery.

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?

Two short front-loaded sentences, 'Heartbeat: prove the worker is alive' then the operational consequence. Slightly terse for a protocol call, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the liveness semantics are covered. However, required params at 0% coverage and no cadence/auth guidance leave meaningful gaps for a lifecycle-critical call.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema or the description. The description never explains what handoff_id vs worker_id identify or which one scopes the liveness claim, leaving two required params undocumented.

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 verb-effect ('prove the worker is alive') tied to the named resource dhp_heartbeat in a worker/handoff protocol. It is distinguishable from siblings like dhp_status or dhp_health, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Says 'Call frequently' and gives the consequence of not calling (silent worker assumed dead), which implies the when. But it does not specify an interval, threshold, or relationship to other lifecycle calls like dhp_claim/dhp_complete.

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