Skip to main content
Glama

zap.health_check

Verify ZAP security tool connectivity and operational status to ensure vulnerability scanning readiness.

Instructions

Check if ZAP is running and accessible

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'zap.health_check' tool. It checks if the ZAP client is initialized and performs the health check by calling client.healthCheck(), then formats the result.
    async (): Promise<ToolResult> => {
      const client = getZAPClient();
      if (!client) {
        return formatToolResult(false, null, 'ZAP client not initialized');
      }
      const result = await client.healthCheck();
      return formatToolResult(result.success, result.data, result.error);
    }
  • Input schema and description for the 'zap.health_check' tool. No input parameters required.
    {
      description: 'Check if ZAP is running and accessible',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • src/tools/zap.ts:39-56 (registration)
    Local registration of the 'zap.health_check' tool within the registerZAPTools function using server.tool().
    server.tool(
      'zap.health_check',
      {
        description: 'Check if ZAP is running and accessible',
        inputSchema: {
          type: 'object',
          properties: {},
        },
      },
      async (): Promise<ToolResult> => {
        const client = getZAPClient();
        if (!client) {
          return formatToolResult(false, null, 'ZAP client not initialized');
        }
        const result = await client.healthCheck();
        return formatToolResult(result.success, result.data, result.error);
      }
    );
  • src/index.ts:49-49 (registration)
    Top-level registration call in the main server setup that invokes registerZAPTools(server), thereby registering the 'zap.health_check' tool.
    registerZAPTools(server);
  • The ZAPClient.healthCheck() method implementation that actually queries ZAP's version endpoint to verify accessibility.
    async healthCheck(): Promise<ZAPScanResult> {
      try {
        const response = await this.client.get('/core/view/version/');
        return {
          success: true,
          data: {
            version: response.data.version,
            status: 'running',
          },
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        return {
          success: false,
          error: error.message || 'ZAP is not accessible',
        };
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking if ZAP is 'running and accessible,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not specify behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., timeouts, connection failures), output format, or any side effects (e.g., logging, triggering alerts). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Check if ZAP is running and accessible'), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'accessible' means, expected output) that would help an agent invoke it correctly. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets the bare minimum for such a simple tool.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description does not incorrectly imply any.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('ZAP'), indicating it verifies the running status and accessibility of the ZAP tool. It distinguishes from siblings like 'zap.get_active_scan_status' or 'zap.get_sites' by focusing on operational health rather than data retrieval or actions. However, it could be more precise about what 'accessible' entails (e.g., network reachability, API responsiveness).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., before performing scans), exclusions (e.g., if ZAP is already confirmed running), or related tools (e.g., 'zap.get_active_scan_status' for monitoring ongoing tasks). This leaves the agent to infer usage context based on the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/telmon95/VulneraMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server