health_check
Server health check.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Htmlpdf Transform Mcp
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond 'check'. It is assumed to be read-only, but lacks explicit confirmation of safety or side effects.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. However, it does not specify the return value (e.g., status, error details), which could aid an agent in interpreting results.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by stating the tool checks server health, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.
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 it's a server health check, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools that handle data extraction and conversion.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied, but there are no explicit context conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: extracting tables, health check, converting HTML to markdown or text, and converting JSON to markdown table. No functional overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a pattern (source_to_target or verb_noun), and all use snake_case. One exception: 'health_check' is a noun_noun instead of verb_noun, but it's a minor deviation.
Tool Count4/5
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable for a focused server. It covers core HTML transformations, though PDF tools are missing from the name 'Htmlpdf'.
Completeness2/5
The server name implies both HTML and PDF handling, but there are no PDF-related tools. Significant gaps exist in the stated domain, limiting agents' ability to perform PDF operations.