Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ApexMCP

ApexMCP

by mad-science-lab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

apex_feed_status

Check whether an Apex feed cycle (A–D) is active and see the remaining seconds to monitor feeding status.

Instructions

Whether a feed cycle (A to D) is running and how many seconds remain.

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": "apex_feed_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it implies a read-only status query but says nothing about polling frequency, caching/staleness of the returned countdown, or whether calling it has side effects. For a simple status endpoint this is adequate but not rich.

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 covering the key facts with no padding. It could be slightly clearer with an explicit verb, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool has no parameters, so the description only needs to convey what the call answers, which it does. Minor gap: it does not mention cycle A-D semantics beyond naming them or expected polling behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing in the schema the description needs to explain, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

States a specific resource and the information returned: feed cycle state (A to D) and remaining seconds. It is clear what the tool answers, but it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings in text and never uses an explicit verb (e.g., 'query'/'check').

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?

Usage is only implied - an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs feed-cycle progress. There is no statement of when to use it versus waiting or checking other tools, and no mention of whether it must be polled.

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