Skip to main content
Glama
x51xxx

OSP Marketing Tools MCP Server

by x51xxx

health_check

Verify the OSP Marketing Tools MCP Server's operational status and resource accessibility to ensure marketing workflows proceed without interruption.

Instructions

Check if the server is running and can access its resources

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'health_check' tool, including its inline handler function that returns a static JSON response with server health status, available resources, and version.
    server.tool(
      "health_check", 
      "Check if the server is running and can access its resources", 
      async (_extra) => ({
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: JSON.stringify({
            status: "healthy",
            resources: ["osp://marketing-tools"],
            version: "1.0.0"
          })
        }]
      })
    );
  • Inline handler for the health_check tool that executes the tool logic by returning a content block with JSON health status.
      async (_extra) => ({
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: JSON.stringify({
            status: "healthy",
            resources: ["osp://marketing-tools"],
            version: "1.0.0"
          })
        }]
      })
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking server status and resource accessibility, but doesn't specify what constitutes 'running' or 'resources', whether this is a lightweight ping or intensive diagnostic, what authentication might be needed, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple health check tool and front-loads the essential information ('Check if the server is running').

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does. However, it lacks details about behavioral aspects (what 'check' entails, response format, error conditions) that would be helpful for an agent to understand the tool's operation fully, especially with no annotations to supplement.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described as having no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which meets expectations for this dimension. A perfect score would require the description to explicitly note the lack of parameters, but it's reasonable to assume this from context.

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 specific verbs ('check if...is running and can access') and resources ('server', 'its resources'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this health check tool from its siblings (all content/guide retrieval tools), which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.

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 or in what context it should be invoked. There are no prerequisites mentioned, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage framework beyond the basic purpose statement.

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/x51xxx/osp-marketing-tools-mcp'

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