Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rata-mcp

rata-mcp

by fuhidev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ghm_health

Checks whether the GHM Automate app is running so agents can verify availability before starting automated workflows. Legacy v1 alias; use rata_health for current checks.

Instructions

[Legacy v1 alias] Check that the GHM Automate app is running. Recommend using rata_health.

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": "ghm_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check that the app is running' implies a harmless read with no side effects, but it does not state side effects, permissions, or what a response looks like, leaving real behavioral questions unanswered.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the legacy/deprecation marker front-loaded so the agent sees the most decision-relevant information first.

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 health probe, the description covers the essentials: what it checks and which sibling supersedes it. The only gap is the absence of any statement about the return value, which matters for a health check since there is no output schema.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies because parameter semantics are a non-issue here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check that the GHM Automate app is running', and prefixes it with '[Legacy v1 alias]' so the agent knows its status. It does not describe how this differs functionally from rata_health, but the legacy tag makes its role distinguishable from the other siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to an alternative: 'Recommend using rata_health.' That is clear deprecation guidance. It stops short of an explicit when-not ('do not call this unless...') or stating which cases still justify the legacy alias.

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