Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
slidecold-mcp

slidecold-mcp

by slidecold
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Proxy health per account

get_accounts_proxy_health
Read-onlyIdempotent

Tests each account's proxy health and returns results keyed by account ID, helping identify accounts with failing proxies.

Instructions

Proxy health per account. Required API key scope: accounts:read. GET /accounts/proxy-health Tests each account's proxy (results cached for 10 minutes). Keyed by account id.

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": "get_accounts_proxy_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds useful behavior beyond them: required accounts:read scope, GET /accounts/proxy-health endpoint, 10-minute result caching, and keyed-by-account-id output. It does not describe rate limits or the exact health fields returned.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then auth scope, endpoint, behavior, and output keying. Every sentence adds useful information with no apparent padding.

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?

For a simple no-parameter read tool, the description covers auth, endpoint, caching, and keyed output. However, because there is no output schema, the description should say more about what the per-account health results contain; 'keyed by account id' alone leaves return-value details unclear.

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 is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, and no parameter-related meaning is missing.

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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: proxy health per account, and clarifies that it tests each account's proxy. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as test_proxy, list_proxies, or check_account_session, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named despite siblings like test_proxy and list_proxies. The 10-minute cache note hints at repeated-call behavior but is not framed as usage guidance.

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