mcp_enuygun_ping
Read-onlyIdempotent
Test tool connectivity
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| random_string | Yes | Dummy parameter for no-parameter tools |
Wingie Enuygun MCP
by com.enuygun
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds minimal behavioral context. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise single sentence, appropriate for a simple ping tool. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a trivial ping tool with full annotations and schema, the description is sufficient. Lacks only a note on expected output.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and describes the dummy parameter adequately. Description does not add further meaning beyond schema.
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 'Test tool connectivity' clearly communicates that this is a ping/health-check tool, distinguishing it from business-operation siblings like bus_search.
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 usage guidelines provided; does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives, e.g., as a pre-flight connectivity check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.