Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cortex MCP

Cortex MCP

by sinja-hatamian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

cortex_health

Verify that the Cortex MCP server is responding so agents can confirm availability before relying on its claims, evidence, and policy review workflows.

Instructions

Check that the Cortex MCP server is responding.

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": "cortex_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say the call is side-effect free, whether it probes dependencies or only process liveness, how quickly it returns, or how a failure presents itself to the caller.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and there is nothing to trim.

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?

The tool is simple and takes no arguments, so the bar is low, but with no output schema the description should still say what a healthy versus unhealthy result looks like (status flag, error text, version info). As written, an agent knows what the tool checks but not what it gets back.

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 is 4. Nothing further is required or missing on the parameter dimension.

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?

States a specific verb and object: 'Check that the Cortex MCP server is responding.' This is plainly distinct from the sibling tools, which all create, add, track, update or review data, though the description never names a sibling or says so explicitly.

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?

The intended use, a liveness/connectivity probe before or when other Cortex calls fail, is only implied by the word 'Check.' There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of how it relates to the sibling data tools.

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