tslink

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Diagnose TSLink

doctor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run TSLink diagnostics if a share or URL fails and status isn't enough. Inspect config, registry, credentials metadata, runtime state; report findings by severity, no writes, return health exit code.

Instructions

Run local TSLink diagnostics and return findings by severity. Use this when a share or URL is not working and status was not enough; it inspects local config, registry, credentials metadata and runtime state, writes nothing, and reports health_exit_code instead of failing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`probe_external`	No	Also attempt a short TCP connection to non-loopback service targets. Leave false unless the user asked to test reachability of a remote backend.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`paths`	Yes	Resolved config, registry, runtime snapshot, auth handoff and PID paths.
`alerts`	No	Recent alert events and masked notifier status.
`counts`	Yes	Service count plus finding counts by severity.
`daemon`	Yes	Whether the local TSLink daemon is running, and its PID when it is.
`portal`	No	Home portal state and exact URL.
`status`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`node_keys`	No
`access_log`	No	Local access-log health: last_write, drops, size_bytes and error.
`credentials`	No	Stored credential expiry with metadata provenance.
`guest_links`	No
`supervision`	No	Verified OS supervision, autostart, restart policy, and diagnostic evidence.
`health_status`	Yes
`tailscale_ssh`	Yes	Tailscale SSH enablement for this node, read from the local Tailscale client: state is enabled, disabled, or unknown, and acl_rule_required records that a tailnet ACL ssh rule is also needed. Informational only; it never changes health_status or health_exit_code.
`schema_version`	Yes
`credential_mode`	Yes
`credential_tier`	Yes
`execution_status`	Yes
`health_exit_code`	Yes	Exit code `tslink doctor` would return for this health status. It is reported, not applied: the tool result itself is successful.
`runtime_snapshot`	Yes	Freshness classification of runtime.json against the current daemon and registry fingerprint.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it enumerates what is inspected (local config, registry, credentials metadata, runtime state), states it writes nothing, and discloses the non-obvious error behavior — returning health_exit_code instead of failing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger, then the behavioral guarantees. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated from the annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still names the output shape (findings by severity, health_exit_code). For a non-destructive, single-optional-parameter diagnostic tool, an agent has everything needed to call it.

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 description coverage is 100% with only one optional boolean that is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: run local TSLink diagnostics and return findings by severity. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `status` tool by noting it is the deeper fallback when status was not enough.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a share or URL is not working and status was not enough') and names the alternative (`status`) that no longer suffices. The single parameter's own schema adds the condition for reaching out externally.

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