Skip to main content
Glama
chapmanjw

Rutherford MCP Server

by chapmanjw
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

doctor

Probe ACP agents to verify they spawn, handshake, and answer. Run a real read-only round trip or a lighter connect-only check to report conformance and provide install hints for missing adapters.

Instructions

Probe each agent (or one named agent) with a real read-only ACP round trip and report conformance.

The trustworthy health check for ACP agents: whether each spawns, handshakes, and answers. Each report is ok / no_answer / model_unavailable / handshake_failed / not_installed / error. model_unavailable means spawn + handshake succeeded (the agent is reachable) but the harness/provider rejected the model on the turn (a model/provider config issue, e.g. a Claude Code on AWS Bedrock / Vertex), so it is NOT reported as a broken agent. Slower than capabilities (it makes a real call per agent); run it to see which of the roster actually drive on this machine. connect_only runs the lighter handshake-only check (spawn + handshake, no prompt) and reports reachable / handshake_failed / not_installed plus each agent's advertised models -- it shows whether Rutherford can talk to and configure an agent even when a model call would fail for a reason outside ACP (an auth / entitlement / quota issue, e.g. Grok without a SuperGrok subscription).

When an agent (codex / claude_code / pi) launches a separate npm ACP adapter shim and that shim is not installed but its underlying CLI is (you have codex/claude/pi), the report adds an install_hint with the exact npm i -g <package> command instead of a flat not_installed -- run that, or setup install_adapters=true, to set the adapter up.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNo
timeout_sNo
connect_onlyNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Tool Definition Quality

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it makes real read-only calls, reports specific statuses, handles npm adapters with install hints, distinguishes 'model_unavailable' as non-broken agent, and describes 'connect_only' behavior. Comprehensive and accurate.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and is structured logically. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value, covering edge cases and alternatives. Could be slightly more concise but not wasteful.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavior, parameters (partially), differentiation from siblings, special cases (npm adapters), and output format hints. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. No notable omissions for a health-check tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'agent' (one or all) and 'connect_only' in detail but does not mention 'timeout_s' at all. Partial coverage leaves a gap for one parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Probe each agent (or one named `agent`) with a real read-only ACP round trip and report conformance.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and differentiates from sibling 'capabilities' by noting it is slower and makes real calls.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: 'run it to see which of the roster actually drive on this machine.' Also explains the 'connect_only' option for cases where model calls would fail due to auth/entitlement/quota issues. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but implies that 'capabilities' is an alternative for faster checks.

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

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/chapmanjw/rutherford-mcp-server'

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