Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ApexMCP

ApexMCP

by mad-science-lab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

apex_module_health

Checks Aquabus module presence, firmware status, and packet error rate to diagnose connectivity and communication problems in Neptune Apex systems.

Instructions

Aquabus module presence, firmware status and packet error rate.

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_module_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what information the tool surfaces (presence, firmware, PER), which implies a read-only diagnostic, but it never explicitly states that it is non-mutating, has no side effects, or whether it requires the device to be online. A 3 reflects that the output content is partially characterized but the operational behavior is not.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The telegraphic fragment style costs a little clarity compared to a full verb-led sentence, but the information density is appropriate.

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?

An output schema exists and covers return values, so the description does not need to explain them. For a zero-parameter status read, what remains missing is the scope of the query (all modules vs. a specific bus) and any behavioral note about whether the tool can fail or time out when the controller is unreachable.

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; the description need not document any. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool where schema coverage is 100%.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (Aquabus modules) and the specific data points it covers (presence, firmware status, packet error rate), which goes beyond a bare restatement of the name. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a read/status operation rather than an action on modules.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus siblings like apex_system_info or apex_get_probes, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the topic (checking module health).

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