Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rata-mcp

rata-mcp

by fuhidev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

rata_health

Check that the RATA Gateway (GHM Automate v2, port 1408) is running and reachable. / Kiểm tra kết nối và tình trạng hoạt động của RATA Gateway (cổng 1408)

Instructions

Check that the RATA Gateway (GHM Automate v2, port 1408) is running and reachable. / Kiểm tra kết nối và tình trạng hoạt động của RATA Gateway (cổng 1408)

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": "rata_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the target service and port, implying a non-destructive read-only check, but it does not describe the response format, timeout behavior, authentication needs, or failure signals expected from a health probe.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and direct, and the Vietnamese translation is parallel. The bilingual duplication adds length, but it does not obscure the core purpose or introduce irrelevant detail.

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 simple no-parameter health check with no output schema, the description gives the essential target, service context, and port. It could be more complete by stating what a successful or failed health check returns, but the core information needed to call it is present.

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 parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and there is no missing parameter information.

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 ('Check') and resource ('RATA Gateway'), plus identifying details (GHM Automate v2, port 1408). It is clearly distinguishable from runtime siblings such as rata_list_profiles and rata_get_job_status, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named ghm_health.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: use this to verify RATA Gateway connectivity and status. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus ghm_health, nor does it describe prerequisites or what to do on failure.

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