pingHealth check that confirms the FXMacroData API and MCP server are reachable. Returns the API health response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"pingArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful detail that the check spans two layers (API and MCP server) rather than one, but it says nothing about latency, failure behaviour, or whether a failure surfaces as an error or a payload field.
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 sentences, zero wasted words, with the identifying purpose ('health check') front-loaded before the scope qualifier. Nothing is buried or repeated from the title.
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?
This is a parameterless tool with an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values and is nearly complete as written. The only marginal gap is the absence of any signal about what an agent should do with the result, which for a diagnostic tool would be a small but real addition.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. No additional parameter meaning is needed or expected here.
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 states a specific verb and resource: a health check that confirms reachability of both the FXMacroData API and the MCP server. That scope is unmistakable against every sibling tool, none of which is a connectivity probe, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.
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?
Usage is strongly implied by the phrase 'health check' – an agent will infer this is a pre-flight or diagnostic call rather than a data query. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer it (for example, before a batch of calls, or after a failure) or that no other tool should be substituted for it.
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.