llmkit-mcp-server

llmkit_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check proxy health and measure response time to ensure reliable connectivity.

Instructions

Check proxy health and response time

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": "llmkit_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`responseTimeMs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1Mar 23, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "responseTimeMs": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "ok",
+        "degraded",
+        "unreachable"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Mar 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds marginal value by specifying 'response time'. However, it does not disclose what happens if the proxy is unhealthy (e.g., timeout, error). The behavioral context is adequate but not enriched beyond 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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with 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?

Given the zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the essential action (health check) and an extra detail (response time) without needing more.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params), so the description bears no burden for parameter explanation. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate.

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 'Check proxy health and response time' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like llmkit_budget_status or llmkit_usage_stats, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied as a baseline check, the description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when it should be used before other tools.

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

Deploy Server