Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Netmon (demo)

by com.netmon
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ping a target host from the Netmon server. Wraps POST /api/getPingInfo/{target} (permission: tools).

The probe runs ON the netmon server, not on the mcpmond host — so reachability reflects what netmon can see, which is what matters for monitoring questions.

Returns {address, latency (avg ms), status (true=reachable), hostname (PTR lookup; falls back to the bare address when the host has no reverse record)}.

A host that does not answer is a normal result, not an error: status is false, latency is null, and two extra fields appear — reason (packet_loss = probes sent, nothing came back; unreachable = the network answered with an ICMP unreachable; unresolved = the name does not resolve) and detail (the ping line that decided it). A down host still gets its hostname resolved. status null means the probe itself failed and reachability is UNKNOWN — never read that as down.

Server fixes count at 4 packets; for longer-running tests use the system tools UI.

Example: ping({target: "8.8.8.8"})

Tool call template

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesIP address or hostname to ping.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by explaining nuanced behaviors: status false is a normal result with distinct reasons (packet_loss, unreachable, unresolved), status null means UNKNOWN and should not be read as down, and hostname resolution persists even when down. It also discloses the fixed packet count. This is exceptionally transparent and adds significant value beyond the structured annotations.

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 lengthy but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the execution context, return fields, and edge cases in a logical order. The structure is clear and the level of detail is justified by the subtle semantics of the tool. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers all necessary aspects: the underlying API, permission requirement, execution location, return fields and their meanings, special status values, and an example. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already describes the target parameter as 'IP address or hostname to ping' with 100% coverage. The description adds an example call but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden, and the description does not materially enhance parameter understanding.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Ping a target host from the Netmon server.' It also differentiates itself by clarifying the execution location (netmon server) and the monitoring context, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like traceroute or snmp_test.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for reachability questions from the netmon perspective. It also mentions an alternative for longer tests ('use the system tools UI'), though not a sibling MCP tool. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare with sibling tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Netmon (demo) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources