Skip to main content
Glama
jolfr

Commit Helper MCP

by jolfr

health_check

Check the health and status of the Commitizen service to monitor its operational state and ensure proper functionality.

Instructions

Check the health and status of the Commitizen service.

Returns: Dict containing service health information

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The 'health_check' tool handler: a FastMCP-decorated function that retrieves Commitizen service info, constructs a health status response, and returns it wrapped in a success response.
    @mcp.tool()
    @handle_errors(log_errors=True)
    def health_check() -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Check the health and status of the Commitizen service.
    
        Returns:
            Dict containing service health information
        """
        info = service.get_info()
    
        result = {
            "status": "healthy",
            "service_info": info,
            "timestamp": str(__import__("datetime").datetime.now()),
        }
    
        return create_success_response(result)
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. It states the tool returns a dict with health information, which is helpful, but lacks details on what the health check entails (e.g., uptime, errors, dependencies), whether it requires authentication, or if it has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, 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 very concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose in one sentence and follows with a brief note on the return value. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: Dict'), the description is somewhat complete. However, for a health check tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more detail on what the health information includes or typical use cases. The output schema likely covers the return structure, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, aligning with the schema. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 the health and status of the Commitizen service.' This specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('Commitizen service'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'analyze_repository_health', which might have overlapping health-checking aspects but focuses on repositories rather than the service itself.

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, timing (e.g., for diagnostics or monitoring), or how it differs from other health-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'analyze_repository_health'. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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

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/jolfr/commit-helper-mcp'

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