Retrieve health scores of APIC objects with severity classification. Classifies objects as healthy (>=90), minor (75-89), major (50-74), or critical (<50).
Retrieve health scores of APIC objects.
Returns health scores of monitored objects with severity classification.
Objects are classified as healthy (>=90), minor (75-89), major (50-74), or critical (<50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool returns health scores with severity classification, which is informative. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only (though implied), nor does it discuss side effects or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, the second describes the return type, and the third details the classification. No extraneous words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, but the description adequately explains what is returned (health scores with severity thresholds). For a parameterless tool, this is fairly complete. However, it could clarify whether the scores are for all objects or require a filter, but since there are no parameters, the return is assumed to be comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves health scores of APIC objects and explains the severity classification. It is specific about the resource (APIC objects) and the action (retrieve health scores). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like apic_get_fabric_health, which may also return health-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as apic_get_fabric_health or apic_get_resource_utilization. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/angoran/git-netai'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server