Check connectivity with SafeDep threat intelligence service. Use this ONLY ONCE per session to verify your connection is working. Do not call repeatedly to avoid latency.
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 | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context about latency costs and session-scoped usage ('use only once'), which helps explain why the tool is marked destructive/non-idempotent. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify what side effects occur or what makes a 'ping' destructive.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 gives usage constraint, sentence 3 provides rationale. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple connectivity tool.
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-parameter tool with annotations covering safety profile (destructive, open-world), the description provides sufficient operational context (when to call, cost implications). Minor gap: could briefly mention expected return format, but not critical for a ping utility.
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?
Baseline score of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. With no parameters to document, the schema coverage of 100% is trivially satisfied and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inventing parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource 'connectivity with SafeDep threat intelligence service'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'check_package_security' by focusing on connection health rather than security analysis of specific packages.
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?
Excellent explicit guidance: 'Use this ONLY ONCE per session to verify your connection is working' specifies exact usage frequency, and 'Do not call repeatedly to avoid latency' provides clear negative constraints with rationale.
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.