Skip to main content
Glama
n1mm-mcp

n1mm-mcp

by qso-graph

N1Mm Diagnostics

n1mm_diagnostics
Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose N1MM Logger+ server health by checking connection status, parse errors, and memory to resolve contest failures and guide production debugging.

Instructions

Server health and diagnostics — connection, parse errors, memory.

Essential for production debugging. First tool to call when something goes wrong during a contest.

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": "n1mm_diagnostics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
station_nameNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the diagnostic-triage framing, but says nothing about cost, whether it touches the network, or scoping behavior. Since an output schema exists, the return shape need not be described.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and the most actionable line (call this first when something breaks) is emphasized early. "Essential for production debugging" is slightly redundant with the following sentence but does not waste much space.

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?

Annotations plus an output schema carry the safety and return-value burden, so the description only needs to cover purpose and scoping. Purpose is covered; the meaning of the sole optional parameter is left entirely unaddressed, which is a real gap for a scoped diagnostics call.

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% and the single parameter is an undescribed nullable string; the description never mentions station_name at all. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether omitting it means 'all stations' or 'default station'.

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 concrete resource plus the specific facets covered (connection, parse errors, memory), which distinguishes it from siblings like n1mm_network and n1mm_current_state. It is not a forced verb phrase, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

"First tool to call when something goes wrong during a contest" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is genuinely useful triage routing. It does not, however, say how it differs from n1mm_network, the most plausible alternative when the symptom is connectivity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.