Skip to main content
Glama
impure0xntk

Wakapi MCP Server

by impure0xntk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Test Connection

test_connection

Verify Wakapi server connectivity by fetching projects via API call, returning success status, error details, and project count for troubleshooting.

Instructions

Test Wakapi server connection via simple API call to fetch projects.

Returns: A dictionary with the connection test result, including: - status (str): 'success' or 'error'. - message (str): Description of the result. - projects_count (int, optional): Number of projects if successful. - server_url (str): The Wakapi server URL. - api_path (str): The API path used for requests. - error (str, optional): Error message if failed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the response fields and success/error status, which is useful, but does not state whether the call is read-only, what authentication it requires, or rate-limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is front-loaded and efficient. However, the subsequent 'Returns' list duplicates the rich output schema field-by-field, adding length without adding information the agent doesn't already have.

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?

Complexity is low and a full output schema exists, so the description is largely complete for this diagnostic tool. It still omits when-to-use guidance and any note about read-only/authentication behavior, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 and resource ('Test Wakapi server connection') and clarifies the mechanism ('via simple API call to fetch projects'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_* data-retrieval tools, which are not diagnostic.

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?

The purpose implies usage (checking connectivity), but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as requiring configured credentials. It is only implicitly guided.

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