Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BAND MCP

BAND MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Verify credentials and upstream reachability

band_healthcheck
Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose BAND API authentication failures by resolving the credential, making one authenticated request, and reporting its source, acceptance, round-trip time, and a plain-English failure hint.

Instructions

Resolves the credential the way real tools do, then makes one authenticated request to api-us.band.us. Reports which source supplied the credential, whether api-us.band.us accepted it, the round-trip time, and a plain-English hint distinguishing 'no credential' from 'credential rejected' from 'a api-us.band.us-side problem'. Read-only; never returns the credential itself. Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.

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": "band_healthcheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond them by spelling out the credential-resolution order ('the way real tools do'), that exactly one request is made, the returned signals (source, acceptance, round-trip time, plain-English hint), and the security guarantee that the credential is never returned. With no output schema, this return-value detail is genuinely useful. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't say what happens on auth-permission-denied versus network timeout beyond the hint taxonomy.

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 purpose and its mechanic lead, the return contract follows, and the usage trigger closes — a sensible diagnostic-tool ordering with no filler sentences. Minor awkwardness ('a api-us.band.us-side problem') and hostname repetition do not cost readability.

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-param, non-destructive probe with no output schema, the description covers both what it does and what it returns, including the tri-state hint that is the main thing an agent must interpret. Complete enough to call and act on; only the exact error-taxonomy boundaries are left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no compensation is required. The description correctly stays silent on inputs rather than inventing any.

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 concrete two-step action — resolve the credential, then make one authenticated request to api-us.band.us — and names exactly what it reports. This is clearly a diagnostic probe, which distinguishes it from every sibling (create/get/list/search tools) without needing to name them.

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 an explicit trigger: call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke. That is a clear when-to-use rule tied to a real decision. It does not state when-not to call it (e.g. proactively before real calls) or name sibling alternatives, 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

Other Tools