Skip to main content
Glama

Tunnel status

status
Read-only

Check the state of one or all VPN tunnels and optionally retrieve recent redacted client log lines for troubleshooting.

Instructions

State of one or all tunnels, optionally with the last lines of the (redacted) VPN client log.

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": "status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
logsNoInclude the recent client log for tunnels this server started.
profileNoProfile name from list_profiles.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the disclosure that log content is redacted and truncated to 'last lines' — useful context an agent would not otherwise know. It does not describe what the returned state consists of (e.g., connected/disconnected, address, uptime), which is a real gap given there is no output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope ('one or all') comes before the optional log detail. The noun-phrase phrasing 'State of...' is slightly awkward but costs nothing in length.

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?

The tool is simple with zero required parameters and read-only annotations, so the definition is close to sufficient. However, with no output schema, the agent still does not know what 'state' contains or how multiple tunnels are represented in the response.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description only reinforces that the log is redacted and limited to the last lines, and that omitting profile yields all tunnels. That is a modest addition over the schema, consistent with the baseline for fully documented 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 names the resource (tunnels) and its scope ('one or all'), plus the optional log payload, so an agent can tell this reports tunnel state rather than performing connection changes. It stops short of naming a sibling or using a crisp verb like 'get', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_profiles or connect. The only implied guidance is that logs=true yields recent log lines, which is a parameter hint rather than routing advice.

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