sassy_observability_health
Verify the health of monitoring tools and load balancers with a quick status check.
Instructions
Simple health check for monitoring tools and load balancers.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Verify the health of monitoring tools and load balancers with a quick status check.
Simple health check for monitoring tools and load balancers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral context, but it only says 'simple health check' without disclosing what it returns, whether it makes network calls, or what failure modes exist. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks information about what a 'healthy' result means or what the response structure is. It is adequate but could be more helpful with a brief note on expected output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 no parameter details because none are needed, and the schema already confirms the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a health check for monitoring tools and load balancers, giving a specific resource and action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like sassy_self_check or sassy_setup_check_tools, though the target resource is narrower.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sassyconsultingllc/SassyMCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server