Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dsh-any-agent

dsh-any-agent

by xmtlzzz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Health check

dsh_doctor
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a read-only health check on the DSH agent, verifying executable version, profile drift, state file, writable run/lock directories, orphan locks, session memory, and config without changes.

Instructions

Read-only health check: the DSH executable and version, whether the profile exists or has drifted, the state file, whether the runs/locks directories are writable, orphan locks, the number of sessions and their RSS, and the effective configuration. It reports and changes nothing; ok=false means at least one check failed.

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": "dsh_doctor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's 'reports and changes nothing' largely restates them. It does add one piece of genuine value the schema cannot: the ok=false sentinel meaning, which matters because there is no output schema. Beyond that, nothing is said about cost, latency, or partial failures.

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?

Front-loaded with the operative constraint ('Read-only health check') and then one dense enumeration that earns every word by naming concrete artifacts checked. The closing sentence delivers the boolean semantics with no filler or 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the remaining burden is telling the agent what the call produces and what a bad result looks like. The enumeration plus the ok=false rule covers both, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline of 4 would normally apply. However, the description's long list of inspected items is really describing output, not inputs, so it contributes nothing on this dimension beyond confirming a parameterless call.

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 ('read-only health check') and then enumerates exactly what is inspected: executable/version, profile drift, state file, writable directories, orphan locks, session RSS, and effective configuration. An agent knows precisely what this returns. It never names a sibling such as dsh_status to differentiate against, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 is named. The closest thing is the interpretation rule 'ok=false means at least one check failed', which explains a result rather than telling the agent when to select this tool over dsh_status.

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