Round-trip ping to the connected device; measures relay + device latency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | target device: name or sid from list_devices. Omit only when the account has exactly one device. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the behavior (ping, measures latency) which implies a read-only diagnostic. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, timeouts, or failure modes. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool without annotation support.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary details.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and the schema covers the parameter. The mention of 'measures relay + device latency' implies the return value. The only missing aspect is explicit usage guidance, but that falls under a different dimension.
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?
The schema already provides a 100% descriptive coverage of the single parameter, including how to specify the device and when to omit it. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the 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?
The description clearly states the action (round-trip ping), the target (connected device), and the measured metric (relay + device latency). It distinguishes this from siblings like device_detail and device_status, which are about details/status, while ping is a connectivity/latency check.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use for connectivity checks' or 'prefer device_status for state information'. The only hint is the parameter description about omitting the device when there is a single device, but no strategic usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
