ping
Read-onlyIdempotent
A simple ping tool
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ATA Travel
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering the main behavioral traits. The description adds no extra context but does not contradict annotations. For a simple tool with annotations, this is adequate.
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, concise sentence that perfectly front-loads the purpose without any unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear annotations, standard ping behavior), the description is complete enough. No output schema is needed for a basic connectivity check.
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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters; the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The name 'ping' and description 'A simple ping tool' clearly indicate a health-check or connectivity test. It is distinct from all sibling tools which focus on business operations like bookings and availability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. However, the purpose is self-evident for a ping tool, and there are no alternative ping-like tools among siblings, so the ambiguity is minimal.
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
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Multiple search tools (search_buildings, search_property_catalog, search_network_availability) and detail tools (get_building_details, get_property_details, get_stays_in_building) have overlapping boundaries, though descriptions clarify date and availability distinctions. The verification/handoff tools are more clearly separated but still numerous.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_*, get_*, search_*, start_*, verify_*). There are no mixed casing conventions or vague generic verbs, making the set predictable and easy to scan.
Tool Count3/5
With 22 tools, the server is on the heavy end of a typical MCP scope, though each tool has a defined purpose. Several narrow status and discovery helpers inflate the count, but the overall count is not yet extreme.
Completeness2/5
The booking lifecycle is incomplete: create_quote and create_provisional_booking exist, but there is no cancel, update, or explicit payment action, and get_reservation_status explicitly cannot change or cancel a reservation. Search and verification are well covered, but missing booking mutations will cause agent dead ends.