ignition-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ignition_diagnose

Run a guided health check to verify reachability, token, permissions, bridge, and trial status. Use this read-only diagnostic when issues occur.

Instructions

Guided health check: reachability, token, permissions, bridge, trial. Read-only. Run this first when anything misbehaves.

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": "ignition_diagnose"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is critical behavioral information. As no annotations are provided, this disclosure helps the agent understand the tool is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or limitations beyond read-only, though for a diagnostic tool this is adequate.

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 concise sentences front-loading the purpose and usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or 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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the scope of the health check and when to run it. No gaps remain for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so there is nothing to add. The description correctly avoids unnecessary detail, and the absence of parameters is inherently clear.

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?

The description clearly states it is a guided health check covering reachability, token, permissions, bridge, and trial. It uses a specific verb ('diagnose') and resource ('ignition'), and distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as a first-run diagnostic tool when issues occur.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Run this first when anything misbehaves,' providing clear context for when to use this tool over others. This guidance effectively differentiates it from sibling tools that may be more specialized.

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