healthchecksio-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a specific resource and action: checks (CRUD, pause/resume, flips), channels, badges, and ping. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and actions like pause vs. resume are clearly distinct.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (list_checks, get_check, create_check, update_check, delete_check, pause_check, resume_check). The single exception 'ping' is a standard verb for heartbeats and fits the pattern.
Tool Count5/5
11 tools is well-scoped for a health checks server. The set covers the primary resource (checks) with full lifecycle actions, plus supporting resources (channels, badges) and the ping action. No unnecessary bloat or thinness.
Completeness5/5
The check lifecycle is complete: create, read, update, delete, list, pause, resume. Additional operations like listing flips, channels, badges, and sending pings cover the core functionality of healthchecks.io with no obvious gaps.
Average 3.5/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 5, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under ISC License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details. It only says 'update configuration' but doesn't mention what fields are affected, whether unspecified fields are reset, permission requirements, or reversibility. It's a mutation tool with no side-effect transparency.
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 description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. However, it's under-specified for the complexity of the tool, but conciseness itself is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only states the high-level purpose without covering parameter semantics, return values, or edge cases. This is inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level information. It doesn't explain the meaning of fields like tz, grace, timeout, channels, or schedule, leaving all 9 parameters unexplained beyond their names.
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 action (update) and resource (an existing check's configuration). It implies this is for modifying an existing check, distinguishing it from create_check, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_check, pause_check, or delete_check. It provides no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Create a new check' and gives no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, what constitutes a valid check, or behavior on duplicate names or missing required fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, as it omits any detail that would justify its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a creation tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description offers no context about what a check is, how checks are configured, or what fields are relevant in different scenarios. The description is far from complete for a tool of this complexity.
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?
The description provides no parameter information. Even though schema description coverage is 78%, the description does not clarify how parameters like schedule versus timeout relate to check types, which fields are required for simple vs. cron checks, or how the 'unique' array works.
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 states the action 'Create' and the resource 'check', which is clear and specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like update_check or pause_check, lacking scope or type of check being created.
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 alternatives such as update_check or schedule vs. simple checks. The description does not indicate any prerequisites, preferred usage patterns, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the action but omits details about reversibility (though resume_check implies it), side effects on ongoing monitoring, permission requirements, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. However, it is so terse that it omits critical usage and behavioral context, which slightly detracts from its structural effectiveness compared to examples that balance brevity with necessary details.
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?
For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it states the action and resource. Yet it fails to mention the reversible nature (resume_check exists), when to use it, or potential side effects, leaving clear completeness gaps even for a low-complexity tool.
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 must compensate for the parameter 'uuid'. The description does not explicitly link the uuid to the check identifier nor explain its format or purpose, adding no semantic value beyond the schema's raw property definition.
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 uses a specific verb 'pause' and identifies the resource as 'monitoring for a check', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like resume_check (opposite action) and update_check (modifying check settings).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as resume_check or update_check. No context is given about prerequisites, scheduling, or scenarios where pausing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action is permanent, which is the critical behavioral trait. Yet it omits other relevant details such as effects on related resources or error behavior, limiting transparency.
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, compact sentence that is appropriately front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description conveys the core function. However, it lacks explicit reference to the UUID parameter and does not address edge cases or side effects, making it only minimally complete for the given context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter (uuid) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain the uuid parameter at all, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance on what to provide.
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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('check'), and the adverb 'permanently' distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_check or update_check, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 word 'permanently' implies this is the irreversible deletion option, providing some implied usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over pause_check or mention prerequisites like the check existing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the precondition that the check must be paused and cron/schedule based, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, failure behavior, or what happens if the check is not paused.
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 sentence, immediately states the action, and avoids unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple one-parameter action, the description covers purpose and scope, but lacks details on error handling, return values, and exact identifier meaning. More context would help but is not critical given the simplicity.
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?
The schema only defines a 'uuid' string with no description, and the description provides no parameter details. The implication from context is that uuid refers to the check to resume, but this is not explicit.
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 uses a specific verb 'Resume monitoring' and clearly identifies the resource as a paused check. It also narrows scope to cron/schedule based checks, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_check and list_checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when a check is paused and needs to be resumed, but only for cron/schedule based ones. It provides a clear constraint though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and scope, with no mention of whether this is read-only, pagination behavior, return format, or other important traits. This is a significant transparency gap.
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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and earns every word.
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 tool is simple (no parameters), but with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the purpose adequately but omits details about the return structure or any behavioral caveats, making it complete enough for basic use but not fully rich.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully defines parameter semantics (baseline 4). The description adds project context but does not need to explain parameters further.
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 clearly states the verb (list), resource (notification channels), and scope (all in the project), with examples of channel types. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_checks and list_badges, which target different resource types.
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 usage is implied by the description and name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to others. However, since no sibling tool performs a similar function, the lack of alternatives makes the implied usage sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description specifies the output (badge URLs). However, it lacks details about authentication, pagination, or error behavior, which a simple list tool might still benefit from.
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 front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable understanding of the return value (badge URLs) and the grouping concept (per tag). It is not overly detailed but sufficient for a simple list operation.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context with 'per tag', suggesting the output is organized by tag, which is helpful even though no parameter exists.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('status badge URLs'), and a scope ('per tag'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_checks (checks) and list_channels (channels).
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 alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status change history and specifically 'up/down flips,' which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or any limitations beyond the schema's seconds parameter. For a read-only operation, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope. Perfectly concise for the complexity.
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?
The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers the core behavior. It lacks explicit return structure, but the phrase 'status change history' gives sufficient expectation for a list of flip events. It does not mention prerequisites like check existence, but for a simple list operation this is not critical. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 50% (only seconds has a description). The description does not directly explain parameters, but the phrase 'for a check' clarifies that uuid refers to a check identifier, adding some value. It does not elaborate on uuid format or offset behavior of seconds. Given the midpoint coverage, the description neither fully compensates nor is redundant.
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 explicitly states 'List status change history (up/down flips) for a check,' which clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (status flip history for a check). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_checks (which lists checks) and get_check (which retrieves current check details).
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 description implies usage for a specific check via 'for a check' but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, such as get_check for current status. It offers no exclusions or alternative tool guidance, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation ('Get details'), which is transparent about non-mutating behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the UUID doesn't exist) or what exactly 'details' includes. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action, target, and key constraint (by UUID). There is no redundant information or filler.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and a clear purpose. The description, combined with the schema, provides enough context for an agent to select and use it correctly. It could mention response format or error cases, but these are not critical given the tool's minimal complexity and the absence of an output schema.
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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'uuid' with the description 'The check's UUID'. The tool's description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving details of a single check by UUID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'check' are specific, and the 'single check by its UUID' aspect distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_checks, create_check, and update_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need details of one specific check and have its UUID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tools. It could be improved by explicitly stating to use list_checks for multiple checks, but the current phrasing is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool lists all checks and optionally filters by tag or status, which conveys the core behavior. However, it does not disclose any details like whether filters are ANDed or ORed, pagination, ordering, or error conditions. For a simple read-only list tool, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose ('List all checks in the project') and then adds the optional filtering. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 simple list tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's scope and filters. It does not explain return values, but for 'list' operations the return type is obvious. The combination of tags and status filters is not explicitly stated, but the schema descriptions cover individual semantics. Overall, it is complete enough for this simplicity level.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (tags and status) with descriptions. The tool description says 'optionally filter by tag or status,' which adds the information that filtering is optional, but this is also implied by the zero required parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is correct.
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 states exactly what the tool does: 'List all checks in the project.' The verb 'list' and resource 'checks' are clear, and the optional filters distinguish it from sibling tools like get_check (which retrieves a single check). It clearly differentiates from mutation tools like pause_check or create_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: it lists all checks, with optional filtering by tag or status. This implies when to use it (to browse checks) versus get_check (for a specific check). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the intended use obvious. The lack of an explicit exclusion is minor, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (sending a heartbeat and reporting status) but omits details like the meaning of the start/log states, the message body, exit code handling, or response format. Not misleading, but incomplete.
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 the action front-loaded. No unnecessary words, every sentence serves a purpose.
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 simple tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the main purpose and use cases. However, the lack of output schema and annotations means the agent has no information about the response or full side effects, but this is a minor gap for a heartbeat ping.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about success/failure states but does not clarify start/log or the other parameters, providing only marginal value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('a check') with a clear scope: heartbeat signal for reporting success, failure, or manual testing. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that manage checks or list resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'report success, failure, or manually test a check.' This provides clear context and separates it from check management tools, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![healthchecksio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nguyenhuy158/healthchecksio-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nguyenhuy158/healthchecksio-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![healthchecksio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nguyenhuy158/healthchecksio-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nguyenhuy158/healthchecksio-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nguyenhuy158/healthchecksio-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server