Skip to main content
Glama

Endpoint Reachability Check

check_endpoint
Read-onlyIdempotent

Probe a public URL to verify reachability and inspect HTTP status, content type, and response characteristics. Get real-time data to validate endpoint behavior before integration.

Instructions

Perform one live, unauthenticated fetch against a public URL or API endpoint before you recommend it, document it, or build on top of it. Use this when the question is simply whether an endpoint currently responds and what kind of response it returns. It reports HTTP status, content type, elapsed time, likely auth/rate-limit signals, and a short response sample. A successful result only proves basic reachability at fetch time. Do not use it to validate authenticated flows, POST side effects, JavaScript execution, or deeper business logic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic http(s) URL or bare domain to probe. Bare domains like google.com are accepted and normalized to https:// automatically.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputUrlNoOriginal user input when normalization changed it, for example when https:// was added.
urlYesNormalized URL that was actually fetched.
accessibleYesTrue when the endpoint returned a 2xx HTTP status.
statusNoHTTP status code returned by the endpoint, when a response was received.
contentTypeNoResponse Content-Type header, if present.
responseTimeMsNoElapsed request time in milliseconds.
authRequiredNoTrue when the server responded with 401 or 403, which usually means credentials are required.
rateLimitedNoTrue when the server responded with 429 Too Many Requests.
sampleResponseNoFirst 1,000 characters of the response body for quick inspection. Use this as a debugging hint only; it may be truncated and should not be treated as a complete page capture.
errorNoValidation or network error when the request could not be completed.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond these by detailing what the tool reports (HTTP status, content type, elapsed time, auth/rate-limit signals, response sample) and caveats (only proves basic reachability, not deeper logic). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise paragraph of 5 sentences, each serving a purpose: main action, usage context, reported details, limitations, and explicit exclusions. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, what it returns, and limitations. No gaps are apparent given the context signals.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter, with a description stating it accepts public URLs or bare domains (automatically normalized to https://). The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a live, unauthenticated fetch against a public URL, specifying the verb (perform fetch), resource (public endpoint), and scope (simplest reachability check). It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_security_headers and verify_claim by emphasizing basic reachability rather than deeper analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use ('before you recommend, document, or build on top of') and when not to use ('Do not use for authenticated flows, POST side effects, JavaScript execution, business logic'). This provides clear decision logic for the agent.

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/anish632/ground-truth-mcp'

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