Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hilo MCP

Hilo MCP

by cnzontle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Diagnosticar la integración

hilo_diagnose
Read-only

Check Hilo connection status and get next steps: verifies credentials, API response, balance, and available templates, with guidance if key is missing.

Instructions

Revisa el estado de la conexión con Hilo y devuelve los siguientes pasos concretos. EJECÚTALA PRIMERO, antes de escribir código: te dice si hay credencial, si es de sandbox o productiva, si la API responde, si hay saldo y cuántas plantillas hay disponibles para enviar. Si falta la key, explica exactamente cómo pedirla.

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": "hilo_diagnose"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It details exactly what the tool checks (credentials, environment, API response, balance, templates) and explains behavior when the key is missing (explains how to ask for it).

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 description is concise with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides details and a directive. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what it checks, what it returns (next steps), and how it handles missing keys.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no need for parameter descriptions. The baseline score of 4 applies as the description sufficiently covers the input aspect.

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 reviews the Hilo connection status and returns concrete next steps. It specifies what it checks: credential, sandbox/prod, API response, balance, template count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hilo_get_template or hilo_send_message.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to execute this tool first before writing any code, providing clear guidance on when to use. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the directive is strong enough.

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