Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Infection Free Zone MCP

Infection Free Zone MCP

by tianq021
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

bridge_probe

Measures round-trip latency of the game bridge and reports session readiness, helping verify the connection before issuing colony orders.

Instructions

Measure round-trip latency of the game bridge and report session readiness.

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": "bridge_probe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
samplesNoNumber of status calls (default 3)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual behavior (latency measurement and readiness reporting) and implies a safe, read-only probe, but leaves open latency units, what 'session readiness' means, and whether failures raise errors or return a status.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slight ambiguity in 'session readiness' is the only cost, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey the return shape; it only hints at readiness and never describes the latency figure (units, aggregation across samples, pass/fail). For a simple one-parameter probe this is adequate but incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional 'samples' parameter is fully documented with range and default. The description adds nothing about sampling behavior or how samples affect the reported latency, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource: measuring round-trip latency of the game bridge, plus reporting session readiness. This is a distinct health-check operation not duplicated by any listed sibling, though the description does not explicitly contrast with diagnostics tools like diagnose_pause.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus other status/diagnostic tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what to do with the result. The agent must infer that this is a connectivity/health check.

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