Skip to main content
Glama

Proxy Pool Health Check

proxy_pool_health_check

Probes each proxy entry via HTTP/HTTPS fetch and reports rolling health, with a connect test for SOCKS5 entries.

Instructions

Probe every entry via tls_fetch-through-proxy + report rolling health.

NB: tls_fetch uses curl_cffi which only honors HTTP/HTTPS proxies, not SOCKS5. SOCKS5 entries get a single connect-test instead.

Ex: proxy_pool_health_check() → {"checked":12,"alive":10,"results":[...]}

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": "proxy_pool_health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
parallelNo
test_urlNohttps://api.ipify.org
timeout_sNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important behavior: probing via tls_fetch-through-proxy, the curl_cffi HTTP/HTTPS-only limitation, and the SOCKS5 single-connect fallback. It still omits whether health results are persisted or only reported, and says little about concurrency or failure handling.

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?

The definition is compact and front-loads the main purpose. The SOCKS5 caveat and output example are useful, though 'rolling health' is somewhat cryptic.

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 output schema and inline example cover the return shape, and the description explains the probe mechanism and SOCKS5 exception. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the missing parameter semantics and unclear state-update behavior leave meaningful gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the three parameters, but it never mentions parallel, test_url, or timeout_s. The example also uses no arguments, leaving parameter meanings entirely implicit.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it probes every proxy-pool entry and reports rolling health. That clearly distinguishes it from sibling pool-management tools such as proxy_pool_list or proxy_pool_add.

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?

The tool name and description imply it is used to check proxy health, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus proxy_pool_list or other pool tools. The SOCKS5 note explains behavior, not when to choose this tool.

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