serve

Diagnostics

doctor

Read-only

Run self-diagnostics when a link is unreachable or a call fails. Checks config, identity fingerprint, account API health, relay health, and UDP 443 reachability, reporting each as a result.

Instructions

Run self-diagnostics when a link is unreachable or a call fails: config and identity fingerprint presence, account API health, relay health, and outbound UDP 443 (QUIC) reachability, each reported as a check result. The probes are best-effort and need no login; a UDP probe that sends but gets no reply is inconclusive, not proof of failure. For plan and quota, use account_status; for the account's link inventory, use links; for a single tunnel's state, use tunnel_status.

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": "doctor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.6Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnly and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by explaining probes are best-effort and require no login. Also clarifies that a UDP send with no reply is inconclusive, not proof of failure, which is valuable behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. Every clause adds useful information, and the key warning is front-loaded.

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?

Fully covers purpose, when to use, alternative tools, behavioral expectations, and result interpretation. With no parameters or output schema, nothing essential 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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description needs no parameter detail.

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?

Clearly states it runs self-diagnostics and lists specific checks (config/identity fingerprint, account API health, relay health, UDP 443 reachability). Explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by directing plan/quota to account_status, link inventory to links, and tunnel state to tunnel_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when a link is unreachable or a call fails') and provides clear alternative tools for other needs, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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

Deploy Server