Skip to main content
Glama

Get Diagnostics

get_diagnostics
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether the pinned STRchive snapshot is loaded and verified via upstream commit, expected vs actual SHA-256, and locus count; use it to confirm data version or diagnose upstream_unavailable errors.

Instructions

Report whether the pinned STRchive snapshot is loaded and verified: upstream commit, expected vs actual SHA-256, and locus count. Use it to confirm the data version or diagnose an upstream_unavailable error. Signature: get_diagnostics().

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_diagnostics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context about what state is inspected and that it is a troubleshooting resource for upstream_unavailable errors. It stops short of saying what happens when the snapshot is not loaded (status field vs error), which would complete the picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then the returned fields, then usage, then signature. Everything earns its place except the explicit signature line, which is redundant for a zero-parameter tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results and does so by listing the three reported facts. It is nearly complete; the only gap is the precise shape of a not-loaded/verification-failed response.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies; the trailing signature get_diagnostics() reinforces that the tool takes no arguments. No further parameter meaning is needed or possible.

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 and resource: report whether the pinned STRchive snapshot is loaded and verified, and enumerates the exact facts returned (upstream commit, expected vs actual SHA-256, locus count). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_locus and search_loci, which retrieve data rather than health/version state.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives two concrete triggers: confirming the data version, and diagnosing an upstream_unavailable error. It does not name an alternative tool or say when not to call it, but for a no-arg diagnostic endpoint the use case is effectively unambiguous.

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