Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sixflags-mcp

sixflags-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

sixflags_healthcheck

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies that themeparks.wiki is reachable and returns Six Flags park data, reporting ok or degraded status plus the number of parks discovered.

Instructions

Check that the upstream data source (themeparks.wiki) is reachable and returning Six Flags park data. Returns ok/degraded plus the number of parks discovered.

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": "sixflags_healthcheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the upstream dependency (themeparks.wiki) and the return shape (ok/degraded plus park count), which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences: the check is front-loaded, followed by the return contract. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read-only probe with no output schema, the description covers the dependency, the possible status values, and the returned count. It could add guidance on interpreting 'degraded' or on how often to poll, but nothing essential 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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing further to document beyond confirming the tool is called with no arguments.

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 specific verb (check) and resource (upstream data source themeparks.wiki reachability plus Six Flags park data), and clearly distinguishes itself from the data-fetching siblings like sixflags_list_parks and sixflags_get_wait_times.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The diagnostic nature of a healthcheck implies when it is useful, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before other tools, on error, for troubleshooting) or how it relates to the sibling tools. Usage is only implied.

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