Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-elasticache-ops

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Node Connectivity

node_connectivity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose Redis/Valkey endpoint connectivity by staging DNS, TCP, TLS, PING, and AUTH checks, stopping at the first failure and returning a timed verdict with a fix hint.

Instructions

Why can't I connect: staged diagnosis of the endpoint, stopping at the first failure. DNS, TCP, TLS (and plaintext fallback), PING, AUTH, each timed with a verdict and one hint per failure class. Socket probes and PING only; credentials never echoed.

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": "node_connectivity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses the staged ordering, the stop-at-first-failure semantics, per-step timing with verdicts, a one-hint-per-failure-class output shape, the plaintext TLS fallback, and the crucial scope constraint that only socket probes and PING are performed with credentials never echoed. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the motivating question, then a compact pipeline listing, then the safety constraints. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic fragments ('Socket probes and PING only; credentials never echoed.') read as notes rather than prose and slightly reduce first-pass comprehension.

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?

Output schema and annotations already cover return shape and safety profile, and the description covers the diagnostic flow well. The one real gap is that with zero input parameters the description never says where the target endpoint comes from (config, environment, default host), which an agent needs to know before invoking it.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter names or types for the description to explain. It does implicitly convey what the probe targets (the endpoint, its TLS layer, auth) but never states how that endpoint is determined.

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?

Opens with the concrete question it answers ("Why can't I connect") and names the exact diagnostic sequence: DNS, TCP, TLS, PING, AUTH. The verb+resource is unambiguous, but it never names a distinct sibling such as node_health, node_doctor, or node_triage, so the agent must infer the boundary from the specificity of the phrase 'connectivity' alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing question rather than stated: an agent can infer 'call this when a connection fails.' There is no guidance on when not to use it, no mention of health-check or triage alternatives, and no prerequisite context, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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