Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Workvivo MCP

Workvivo MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Verify the ContextMint Bridge connection end-to-end

workvivo_healthcheck
Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose why a Workvivo tool call failed by round-tripping a public URL through the bridge and reporting which hop broke: bridge, extension link, or the remote site.

Instructions

Round-trips a small public acme.workvivo.us URL (/api/notifications/unread) 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 acme.workvivo.us-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": "workvivo_healthcheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world, and the description adds things annotations cannot: no auth required, execution happens via the signed-in browser tab, and the response enumerates role (host/peer/null), port, version, extension link state, elapsed time, and a plain-English fault hint. It also pre-divides failure modes the agent should expect to disambiguate, which is exactly the context needed to interpret a negative result.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the returned diagnostics, then safety, then the call condition – a logical order with no filler. It is dense, though: the parenthetical state list ('linked / pair pending / not attached / never answered') and the four-way fault enumeration could be split for readability without losing information.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so concretely. For a zero-parameter read-only diagnostic against an open-world target, an agent has everything it needs to decide when to call it and how to read the result.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly avoids inventing parameter-like options such as a target URL or timeout, which would have been misleading.

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 and resource (round-trips a URL through ContextMint Bridge) plus the concrete endpoint used, and the output is named as diagnostics rather than data. This clearly separates it from every sibling, which are all content-retrieval tools on the workvivo surface.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the trigger condition: 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke,' which implicitly excludes normal data reads as the reason to call it. No further alternatives exist for this diagnostic role, so the guidance is complete for the decision an agent has to make.

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