Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aktar

Aktar

Official
by getaktar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Aktar status

get_status
Read-only

Check whether Aktar is running and connected, and report its selected version and destination.

Instructions

Check that Aktar is running and connected, and which version and destination it has selected.

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": "get_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: it specifies exactly which facts the check surfaces (running state, version, selected destination), which is the only place that information appears since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing failure behavior or what happens when Aktar is not connected.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary function (checking Aktar is running) and then appends the secondary details. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 status probe with no output schema, the definition covers what is checked and implicitly what is returned, which is the essential information. The one gap is the absence of any note on the negative case (what the agent learns if Aktar is down), which would help an agent decide whether to treat the call as a gate.

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, so parameter semantics carry a baseline of 4 by rule. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, matching the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ("Check") with a concrete resource and enumerates the three things reported: running/connected state, version, and selected destination. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_destinations, which enumerate options rather than reporting the active one, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a health/connectivity probe to run before or after other Aktar operations. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_destinations for full destination listings.

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