Skip to main content
Glama
Zetrix-Chain

Zetrix MCP Server

Official
by Zetrix-Chain

zetrix_check_health

Check the operational status of the Zetrix blockchain node to verify system availability and functionality.

Instructions

Check the health status of the Zetrix node

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:61-68 (registration)
    Tool registration including name, description, and empty input schema (no parameters required). This is part of the tools array served via ListToolsRequestHandler.
    {
      name: "zetrix_check_health",
      description: "Check the health status of the Zetrix node",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • MCP server request handler for CallToolRequest. Extracts no arguments (empty schema), calls ZetrixClient.checkHealth(), and returns JSON-formatted result as text content.
    case "zetrix_check_health": {
      const result = await zetrixClient.checkHealth();
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Core implementation of the health check in ZetrixClient class. Performs GET /hello to the RPC endpoint, checks HTTP 200 status for health, includes network/RPC details and timestamp. Returns error details if failed.
    async checkHealth(): Promise<ZetrixNodeHealth> {
      try {
        const response = await this.client.get("/hello");
    
        return {
          healthy: response.status === 200,
          network: this.network,
          rpcUrl: this.rpcUrl,
          timestamp: Date.now(),
        };
      } catch (error) {
        const errorMessage = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
        return {
          healthy: false,
          network: this.network,
          rpcUrl: this.rpcUrl,
          timestamp: Date.now(),
          error: errorMessage,
        };
      }
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of the health check response.
    export interface ZetrixNodeHealth {
      healthy: boolean;
      network: string;
      rpcUrl: string;
      timestamp: number;
      error?: string;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'checks' health status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what 'health' entails (e.g., uptime, connectivity, performance), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving significant gaps.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details on what 'health status' includes, how results are returned, or any operational context, making it incomplete for effective use by an AI agent, especially with no annotations to supplement.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, this is acceptable, and it doesn't contradict the schema, warranting a baseline score of 4.

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 action ('Check') and resource ('health status of the Zetrix node'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zetrix_ws_status' or 'zetrix_get_latest_block', which might also relate to node status, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'zetrix_ws_status' that might check WebSocket status, the description lacks context on whether this is for overall node health, specific components, or diagnostic purposes, leaving usage ambiguous.

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/Zetrix-Chain/zetrix-mcp-server'

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