Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dockhand-readonly-mcp

dockhand-readonly-mcp

by cgfm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Check Dockhand health

dockhand_health
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether the Dockhand service is reachable and healthy, ensuring accurate status updates for container environments.

Instructions

Checks whether the configured Dockhand service is reachable and healthy.

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": "dockhand_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'configured' and 'reachable and healthy' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, return format, or what happens if the service is unhealthy.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the single-sentence description is largely sufficient. It could specify what a negative result means or the response format, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is nearly complete, warranting a 4 rather than 5.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. With zero parameters, the description need not add parameter syntax or meaning, and the baseline of 4 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'checks' and resource 'configured Dockhand service' with the outcome 'reachable and healthy'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or get individual resources.

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?

The description implies this is for verifying the service's health, and all sibling tools are list/get operations, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools