Simple connectivity test. Returns a greeting to confirm the server is running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Arbitrary label included in the response, e.g. 'healthcheck' | world |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a greeting to confirm the server is running, but does not mention any rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.
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?
Description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or redundant information.
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 ping tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and return behavior. Schema handles parameter semantics, annotations handle safety.
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 coverage is 100%, so the 'name' parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any extra parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as a connectivity test that returns a greeting, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('server connectivity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tool search_recipes, which is for searching recipes.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling search_recipes is unrelated, but the description does not state when to prefer ping (e.g., for health checks before other calls).
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.
ping and search_recipes have completely distinct purposes: one is a health check, the other is the core search functionality. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow a simple, conventional lowercase verb style. 'ping' is a standard connectivity command, and 'search_recipes' follows the verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a large recipe database. The search tool is powerful, but a typical recipe server might also include get_recipe or list_categories. The count is on the low end of the borderline range.
For a read-only recipe search server, the surface is mostly complete. search_recipes returns full recipe details, so there is no need for separate get_recipe. Minor gaps include no direct recipe-by-ID retrieval and no browsing/filtering without a query, but these are workable for most use cases.