Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Joist MCP

Joist MCP

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

joist_status

Verifies your Cotlet.dev account, available credits, and Joist connection are ready so you can safely run Joist operations.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Joist are ready: account, credits and Joist connection.

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": "joist_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the scope of the check (account, credits, connection), which is useful, but says nothing about whether a failed check returns an error or a status payload, or whether the call has any side effects — reasonable assumptions for a status tool, but not stated.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the three checked components listed compactly via a colon. No wasted wording, though the trailing enumeration is slightly terse and could specify what result to expect.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (no params, no nested objects), so little is required, but with no output schema the description should say what a caller gets back — a per-component ready/not-ready status, or an error on failure. The enumeration of checked areas partially fills that gap but not fully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which normally earns a 4 baseline, but the description does not explain what the check yields per component. It adds no parameter-level meaning because there are no parameters to describe, leaving the score at the neutral baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a clear verb ("Check") with a specific resource (Cotlet.dev account + Joist readiness) and enumerates the three things verified: account, credits, connection. It is distinguishable from siblings like joist_click or joist_read, which are actions, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no stated when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The pre-flight nature of a readiness check is only implied by the wording "ready"; an agent must infer that this should be called before attempting other Joist operations.

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