Skip to main content
Glama

vim_health

Assess the health of Neovim connections to ensure stable and reliable integration with the mcp-neovim-server for efficient code editing workflows.

Instructions

Check Neovim connection health

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:465-478 (registration)
    Registration of the 'vim_health' tool using server.tool(), including description, empty input schema, and inline handler that delegates to neovimManager.healthCheck() and formats the response.
    server.tool(
      "vim_health",
      "Check Neovim connection health",
      {},
      async () => {
        const isHealthy = await neovimManager.healthCheck();
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: isHealthy ? "Neovim connection is healthy" : "Neovim connection failed"
          }]
        };
      }
    );
  • Inline handler function for the vim_health tool that performs the core logic: calls healthCheck on neovimManager and returns a formatted text response.
    async () => {
      const isHealthy = await neovimManager.healthCheck();
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: isHealthy ? "Neovim connection is healthy" : "Neovim connection failed"
        }]
      };
    }
  • The actual health check implementation in NeovimManager: attempts to connect to Neovim via socket and evaluate a simple expression '1' to verify connection health.
    public async healthCheck(): Promise<boolean> {
      try {
        const nvim = await this.connect();
        await nvim.eval('1'); // Simple test
        return true;
      } catch {
        return false;
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks health but doesn't explain what 'health' entails (e.g., connectivity, plugin status, performance), what the output might include, or any side effects like logging or timeouts. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence: 'Check Neovim connection health.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place by clearly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'health' means, what the tool returns (e.g., status codes, error messages), or behavioral traits like execution time or dependencies. For a health-check tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its functionality and output.

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 there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool.

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 tool's purpose as 'Check Neovim connection health' with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Neovim connection health'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like vim_buffer or vim_command by focusing on health verification rather than buffer operations or command execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from vim_status, which might overlap in monitoring functionality.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as when to verify connection health (e.g., after errors or periodically), or suggest alternatives like vim_status for broader status checks. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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

Related 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/bigcodegen/mcp-neovim-server'

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