Echo back the input message. A built-in test tool to verify the gateway is working.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"message": "<message>"
},
"name": "echo"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The message to echo back |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that this is a built-in test tool, implying it touches no real data, but it says nothing about latency, side effects, or the exact shape of the echoed response beyond the obvious.
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?
Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the purpose immediately after. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only test utility, the description covers what it does, what it is for, and implicitly what it returns. No output schema is needed given the trivial echo semantics.
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?
There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the message field fully. The description adds no format, size, or encoding guidance beyond restating the echo relationship, which is the expected baseline here.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Echo back the input message") and immediately classifies the tool as a built-in test/diagnostic helper. Nothing in the sibling list resembles an echo utility, so an agent can identify it without further inspection.
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 phrase "to verify the gateway is working" gives a clear use case: connectivity/diagnostic checks. It does not spell out when not to use it or name an alternative, but for a trivial test tool there is no meaningful alternative to redirect to.
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.