Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

zkapi_health

Check live health of the zkAPI private-payments rail on Base, including tree depth, nullifier ledger length, minimum query price, receiver, and uptime for free.

Instructions

Live status of the zkAPI private-payments rail on Base: tree depth, nullifier ledger length, minimum query price, receiver, and uptime. Free.

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": "zkapi_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call is free (no payment gating) and that it returns live operational metrics, but it says nothing about caching/freshness guarantees, rate limits, or whether the call can fail or degrade — relevant for a health endpoint.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then lists the return fields, ending with the practically important 'Free.' No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no input parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating what the response contains. What is missing is minor: freshness semantics and failure behavior for a status endpoint.

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 and the schema is a closed empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter talk.

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?

Specific verb-less but precise statement: 'Live status of the zkAPI private-payments rail on Base', plus an enumeration of the exact fields returned (tree depth, nullifier ledger length, minimum query price, receiver, uptime). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like zkapi_get_kit and zkapi_pay_privately_info, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

'Live status' implies a monitoring/liveness use case and 'Free' signals no payment is required, which is genuine guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the other zkapi_* siblings, nor any preconditions, so usage is only implied.

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