Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
runecho

runecho

by inth3shadows
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the store's schema integrity and enrolled repositories to confirm the index is sound; use status for a single repo's freshness.

Instructions

Store-wide health: schema version, integrity check, enrolled repo names and count, db path. Use once to check the store itself is sound (integrity, schema) or to list what is enrolled; for one repo's freshness use status. Takes no arguments.

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": "health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned fields (schema version, integrity, enrolled repos, db path) even though there is no output schema, and confirms it takes no arguments.

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 resource scope, then the usage routing. Every clause carries information; 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?

For a parameterless read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what it checks, what it returns, when to use it, and which sibling to use instead.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming 'Takes no arguments,' which matches the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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+resource ('Store-wide health') and enumerates exactly what it reports: schema version, integrity check, enrolled repo names and count, db path. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `status`.

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 explicit when-to-use ('check the store itself is sound... or to list what is enrolled') and names the alternative with its condition ('for one repo's freshness use `status`'). Nothing is left to inference.

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