get_server_statusCurrent live-probe status for one server: verdict (GOOD / WARN / AUTH_REQUIRED / DOWN / UNPROBEABLE), exposed tool count, handshake latency, negotiated protocol version, remote endpoint, and when it was last seen healthy. Omit the slug to get the catalog-wide verdict summary instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Catalog slug. Omit for the catalog-wide verdict rollup. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, enumerating the verdict states, returned fields, and the conditional behavior when slug is omitted. This fully discloses the tool's output and two operational modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loading the action and listing outputs concisely, then providing the usage hint. No extraneous wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, readOnly annotations), the description fully covers output fields and the two request modes. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already states 'Omit for the catalog-wide verdict rollup.' The tool description repeats this, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves live status for a single server, listing specific fields like verdict, tool count, and latency. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that omitting the slug yields a catalog-wide verdict rollup, which is unique among sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains when to omit the slug for a catalog-wide summary, giving direct usage guidance. However, it does not contrast with specific sibling tools or state when not to use, which would elevate it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: catalog stats, individual server entry, history, status, categories, schema drift, incidents, and search. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_) using snake_case, making it predictable for agents.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a monitoring/catalog service—neither too sparse nor bloated, each tool adds clear value.
Covers core monitoring lifecycle (stats, server details, status, history, incidents, search). Slight gap: no direct 'list all servers' endpoint, but search can approximate it.