harristeeter-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Verify the ContextMint Bridge connection end-to-end

ht_healthcheck

Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose browser-bridge failures by round-tripping a public Harris Teeter URL and reporting role, port, version, link status, latency, and a hint identifying which hop broke.

Instructions

Round-trips a small public www.harristeeter.com URL (/robots.txt) through ContextMint Bridge (your signed-in browser tab) and returns diagnostics: the bridge's role (host/peer/null), port, version, the extension link (linked / pair pending / not attached / never answered), the elapsed round-trip time, and a plain-English hint distinguishing 'bridge never came up' from 'extension not connected' from 'this browser can't serve a capability' from 'real www.harristeeter.com-side problem'. Read-only, no auth required. 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": "ht_healthcheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what the call round-trips, that it runs through a signed-in browser tab, that no auth is required, and exactly which diagnostics and hint categories come back. It also enumerates failure modes ('bridge never came up' vs 'extension not connected' vs 'can't serve a capability' vs 'server-side problem').

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 URL and purpose are front-loaded, then diagnostics, then the call trigger. The long enumerated clause is dense and slightly run-on, but every element (ports, version, link state, RTT, hint categories) earns its place for a diagnostics tool.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so comprehensively, including the distinct link states and the plain-English hint. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is a 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inventing parameter detail.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Round-trips a small public www.harristeeter.com URL (/robots.txt) through ContextMint Bridge') and frames the tool as a diagnostic, which clearly separates it from the ht_ shopping/cart/order siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke.' That is clear usage context, though it states no explicit when-not-to-call case or named alternative.

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