Skip to main content
Glama
jfrog

JFrog MCP Server

Official
by jfrog

jfrog_check_availability

Verify the operational status of the JFrog platform to ensure it is ready and functioning correctly.

Instructions

Check if JFrog platform is ready and functioning or not

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of the JFrog platform availability check: sends GET request to /artifactory/api/v1/system/readiness and parses response with schema.
    export async function checkPlatformReadiness() {
      const response = await jfrogRequest("/artifactory/api/v1/system/readiness", {
        method: "GET",
      });
         
      return JFrogPlatformReadinessSchema.parse(response);
    }
  • Tool registration object defining name, description, input schema (empty), and thin handler wrapper calling checkPlatformReadiness.
    const checkJfrogAvailabilityTool = {
      name: "jfrog_check_availability",
      description: "Check if JFrog platform is ready and functioning or not",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(z.object({})),
      //outputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(JFrogPlatformReadinessSchema),
      handler: async () => {
        return await checkPlatformReadiness();
      }
    };
  • Zod schema for parsing the JFrog platform readiness API response (output schema).
    export const JFrogPlatformReadinessSchema= z.object({
      code: z.string()
    });
    
    export type JFrogPlatformReadinessSchema = z.infer<typeof JFrogPlatformReadinessSchema>;
  • Export of RepositoryTools array registering the jfrog_check_availability tool among repository tools.
    export const RepositoryTools =[ 
      checkJfrogAvailabilityTool,
      createLocalRepositoryTool,
      createRemoteRepositoryTool,
      createVirtualRepositoryTool,
      setFolderPropertyTool,
      listRepositoriesTool
    ];
  • HTTP request utility jfrogRequest used by the handler to communicate with JFrog API, handling auth via env vars and errors.
    export async function jfrogRequest(
      urlPath: string,
      options: RequestOptions = {},
      postProcess: (data: unknown) => unknown = (x) => x
    ): Promise<unknown> {
      const headers: Record<string, string> = {
        "Content-Type": "application/json",
        "User-Agent": USER_AGENT,
        ...options.headers,
      };
    
      if (process.env.JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN) {
        headers["Authorization"] = `Bearer ${process.env.JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN}`;
      }
    
    
      const baseUrl = normalizeJFrogBaseUrl(process.env.JFROG_URL || "");
      const path = urlPath.startsWith("/") ? urlPath.substring(1) : urlPath;
      const url = baseUrl ? `${baseUrl}${path}` : urlPath;
    
      try {
        const axiosConfig: AxiosRequestConfig = {
          method: options.method || "GET",
          url,
          headers,
          data: options.body,
        };
    
        const response = await axios(axiosConfig);
        return postProcess(response.data);
        return response.data;
      } catch (error) {
        if (axios.isAxiosError(error) && error.response) {
          throw createJFrogError(error.response.status, error.response.data);
        }
        throw error;
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates a read-only check ('Check if... ready and functioning'), it lacks details on what 'ready and functioning' entails (e.g., API responsiveness, service health), potential side effects (e.g., if it triggers diagnostics), error handling, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Check if JFrog platform is ready and functioning or not'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant words, and appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place by conveying essential intent without fluff.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ready and functioning' means operationally, what the output might look like (e.g., boolean status, detailed health report), or any dependencies (e.g., network connectivity). For a tool that could inform critical decisions about platform usability, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—it efficiently avoids unnecessary parameter discussion for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if JFrog platform is ready and functioning or not'. It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('JFrog platform'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like health-check or status tools that might exist, though its focus on 'platform readiness' is reasonably distinct from the many create/get/list operations in the sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), timing (e.g., after deployment or before operations), or related tools (e.g., if other tools might provide similar status information). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jfrog/mcp-jfrog'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server