Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SIMPA

SIMPA

by dsidlo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Health Check

health_check

Check the SIMPA MCP service's operational status by returning its health, version, and timestamp to confirm availability.

Instructions

Health check endpoint.

Returns the health status of the SIMPA MCP service.

Examples: Request (no parameters needed): json {}

Returns: Service health status with version and timestamp

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": "health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
serviceYes
versionYes
timestampYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output (health status with version and timestamp) and implies a read-only operation through 'Returns' and 'health check'. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or requires no special permissions, which would make the safety profile clearer.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and includes a redundant example request that duplicates the empty schema. The example is unnecessary but not harmful; overall it is concise and well-structured.

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-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and return summary. It does not mention error conditions or authentication, but these are less critical for a health check. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no parameter semantics but correctly shows an example with an empty request. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 action and resource: 'Returns the health status of the SIMPA MCP service'. It is immediately distinct from sibling tools which handle prompts and projects, so an agent can easily identify its purpose.

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 provides clear context that this tool reports service health, implying it should be used to check service status. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling provides health check functionality, so the context is sufficient. No exclusions are needed.

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