Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-ntfy

mcp-ntfy

by mambucodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Server Health

server_health

Check ntfy server health and message statistics. Provide an optional server URL, defaulting to ntfy.sh.

Instructions

Check ntfy server health status and message statistics.

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": "server_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serverNontfy server URL. Defaults to "https://ntfy.sh" if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention side effects, network behavior, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a read-only health check, this may be acceptable, but the description provides no additional context beyond the core function.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no unnecessary words or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is reasonably complete. However, it leaves the exact meaning of 'message statistics' unspecified, and does not clarify whether the health check returns a boolean, a structured report, or something else. This is a minor gap for a health-check tool.

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?

The schema already documents the single optional 'server' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat it. However, the description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter, such as its impact on the health check or examples of valid values, keeping it at the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool checks server health status and message statistics, using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools publish and poll, which have different purposes, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It is implied that this is for health checks, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to other tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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