Skip to main content
Glama

get_api_diagnostics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve MCP and Time API diagnostics, including versions, API base URL, auth configuration, and live health, to troubleshoot authentication or connectivity failures.

Instructions

Return MCP and findtime Time API diagnostics: running MCP version, latest published version, API base URL, auth configuration, and live health. Call this after auth or connectivity failures. It does not answer time questions.

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_api_diagnostics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_endUserIdNoOptional opaque per-call end-user attribution token populated by the MCP host, not the LLM. Use a non-PII hash or token; never send raw email, name, or platform user ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.27.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the full safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds value by enumerating what is diagnosed and framing it as a post-failure troubleshooting step; it does not mention rate limits or output format, which keeps it below 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, followed by the trigger and the explicit non-use case. No filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Zero required parameters, no output schema needed for a diagnostic dump, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the trigger, scope, and exclusions needed to call it 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 single parameter has 100% schema coverage and is documented as host-populated, not LLM-supplied, so the description correctly needs no parameter prose. Baseline would be 3; the trigger context slightly lifts it because an agent need not reason about the only parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and an enumerated resource (MCP version, latest published version, API base URL, auth config, live health). It also explicitly carves itself off from the time-answering siblings with 'It does not answer time questions.'

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this after auth or connectivity failures.' The negative clause pointing to time questions provides the exclusion that distinguishes it from answer_time_question and the other time tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.