Basic ping test to check MCP server connectivity and response time. Returns server status and timestamp.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ping"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | Optional message to include in the ping response | ping |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the load; it does disclose the return content (status and timestamp) and that it is a lightweight timing probe. It omits that the call is side-effect-free and that the optional message is echoed back, but for a trivial probe this is reasonably informative.
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 zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the return behavior follows immediately.
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 zero-required-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back. The only missing piece is disambiguation from 'health_check', which matters given the crowded sibling list.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'message' parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 'ping', max 100 chars). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema-only baseline of 3 applies.
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 action (connectivity/response-time check) and what it returns (server status and timestamp). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'health_check', which appears to serve an overlapping purpose, so an agent cannot fully route between the two from the text alone.
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 purpose implies when to call it (a quick connectivity check), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the closely related 'health_check' sibling. With two overlapping diagnostics tools available, the lack of an alternative reference is a real gap.
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.