Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ACOMO MCP Server

ACOMO MCP Server

by progress-all
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Health

health

Monitor and verify the operational status of the ACOMO MCP Server using a fixed response health check tool, ensuring reliable backend service interaction.

Instructions

acomo MCP server health check (fixed response)

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": "health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/server.ts:24-32 (registration)
    Registration of the 'health' tool with server.registerTool, including metadata, empty input schema, and inline handler function that returns a fixed 'ok' response.
    server.registerTool(
  "health",
  {
    title: "Health",
    description: "acomo MCP server health check (fixed response)",
    inputSchema: {},
  },
  async () => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: "ok" }] })
);
  • src/server.ts:31-31 (handler)
    The handler function for the 'health' tool, which executes a simple fixed response: { content: [{ type: "text", text: "ok" }] }
    async () => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text: "ok" }] })
  • src/server.ts:26-30 (schema)
    Tool schema definition including title, description, and empty inputSchema (no input parameters required).
    {
  title: "Health",
  description: "acomo MCP server health check (fixed response)",
  inputSchema: {},
},

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a health check with a 'fixed response', which implies it's a read-only operation that returns consistent output. However, it doesn't specify what the fixed response contains, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function and key behavioral trait ('fixed response'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficiently structured.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It identifies the tool as a health check but lacks details on the response format or error conditions, which could be helpful for an agent despite the low complexity.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and its baseline score of 4 reflects this adequate coverage without redundancy.

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's purpose as a 'health check' for the MCP server, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'describe_api' or 'list_apis' that might also provide server status information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other sibling tools or what context triggers its use, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

Related Tools