automation-health-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check_endpoint

Verify an endpoint's real health by checking its response payload, not just HTTP status. Ensure required JSON data is present and non-empty to catch integrations that report success while quietly failing.

Instructions

Check an integration by its payload, not its status code.

Set require_json_path to the part of the response that proves the integration is alive — for example "data" for a list of connected accounts. An endpoint returning HTTP 200 with an empty list is a disconnected integration, and this is the check that catches it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "check_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`headers`	No
`require_json_path`	No
`require_non_empty`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a subtle non-obvious behavior: the tool inspects payload rather than status code, and that an empty/absent path denotes a failing check. It also explains the require_non_empty semantics implicitly via the empty-list example. It doesn't cover network/error behavior, but the core distinguishing behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 tightly written: two sentences of prose plus a clarifying example. The core contrast (payload not status code) is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place — the require_json_path guidance and the 200-with-empty-list example are both load-bearing. Zero waste.

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 check tool with an output schema and only one required parameter, the description is quite complete. It captures the tool's reason-to-exist (distinguishing live from disconnected integrations), explains the key toggle, and gives a concrete usage pattern. Remaining gaps (behavior when require_non_empty=false, error/handling on unexpected shapes) are minor for a validation-type tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It directly explains require_json_path with a concrete example ('data') and clarifies require_non_empty semantics through the empty-list scenario. However, it does not explain url, headers, or the exact meaning of require_non_empty=false, leaving some parameters under-documented.

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 carries a strong, distinct verb+resource: 'Check an integration by its payload, not its status code.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (list_jobs, check_recent_errors, etc.) by framing the check as payload-based rather than status-based. The key example (HTTP 200 with empty list = disconnected) crystallizes what makes this tool unique versus the alternatives.

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 gives concrete guidance on how to use the tool (set require_json_path to the part proving liveness) and the motivating scenario (catching disconnected integrations behind HTTP 200). It implies when to use it versus plain status-checking tools, but doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server