Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WinCode

WinCode

by linnnn89
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

wincode_hello_world

Verify WinCode Gateway connectivity and heartbeat status for AI coding agents. Optionally sends a custom greeting to confirm the tool is responsive.

Instructions

Minimal connectivity and heartbeat verification tool for AI coding agents (Codex, Claude, etc.). Confirms WinCode Gateway is online.

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": "wincode_hello_world"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
greetingNoOptional custom greeting message to echo back.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Heartbeat verification' and 'confirms online' suggest a read-only probe with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state that it performs no mutations, what it returns, or how it signals failure. Some inference is required.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the audience is clarified in the same breath. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a trivial one-optional-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the purpose, the checked resource, and the parameter behavior via the schema. It could be slightly more explicit about the response format or offline behavior, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it.

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 description coverage is 100% and the greeting parameter already has a description ('Optional custom greeting message to echo back'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a clear purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Minimal connectivity and heartbeat verification tool' that 'Confirms WinCode Gateway is online.' This distinguishes it from the sibling analysis and workspace tools, whose purposes are entirely different.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies usage as a lightweight connectivity/health check before deeper work, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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