SassyMCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sassy_self_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies server health by comparing module manifest to live tool registry, distinguishing real import failures from expected lazy-loaded absences to diagnose missing tools.

Instructions

Read-only diagnostic. Reconciles the declared module manifest against the live tool registry and reports verdict "whole" or "DEGRADED", package version, runtime (frozen for packaged builds, source for checkouts), pid, live_tool_count, and a per-module import report. It distinguishes real problems from expected absences: BROKEN modules (expected in the default load but fail to import, logged at ERROR) versus dormant_by_design (on-demand groups not yet toggled on, absent by design) versus pruned_low_usage (dropped by usage scoring) versus unsupported (optional modules failing on this platform, non-fatal). Takes no parameters. Use it to verify server health or to diagnose missing tools without confusing intentional lazy-loading with real failures.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.15.1Sep 18, 2026

addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```

removedOutput schema / properties

Removed value: -{
-  "result": {
-    "title": "Result",
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}

removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "result"
-]
```

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"sassy_self_checkOutput"New value: +"sassy_self_checkDictOutput"

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it explains the category taxonomy (BROKEN vs dormant_by_design vs pruned_low_usage vs unsupported), the ERROR logging level for BROKEN modules, and the runtime distinction (frozen vs source). This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool reveals without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core identity ('Read-only diagnostic') followed by the reconciliation action and output fields. The longer tail about category distinctions is dense and earns its place—it directly prevents the common misinterpretation of expected absences as failures. Every sentence adds information; no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters, a full annotation set, and an output schema present, the description's burden is modest. It nevertheless covers the tool's output fields, its diagnostic categories, and its intended use cases. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to invoke this tool or to interpret its verdict is missing.

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 and an empty schema, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters,' which removes any doubt an agent might have about optional arguments. Nothing more is needed.

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 opens with 'Read-only diagnostic' and immediately states the specific action: 'Reconciles the declared module manifest against the live tool registry and reports verdict...' This names the exact resource and operation, and the detailed output fields make it unmistakable what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from diagnostic siblings like sassy_observability_health or sassy_setup_status by focusing on manifest-to-registry reconciliation.

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 ends with an explicit usage directive: 'Use it to verify server health or to diagnose missing tools without confusing intentional lazy-loading with real failures.' This gives clear when-to-use context, but it stops short of naming alternatives or stating when *not* to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Deploy Server