ping
Connectivity test.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
driftoracle
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Connectivity test.' offers no details on what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, latency), timeout behavior, or side effects. It adds little beyond the tool name and is essentially a tautology.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. 'Connectivity test.' efficiently states the purpose. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but for a zero-parameter tool it is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole information source. It fails to explain expected results, error conditions, or what 'connectivity' refers to in the context of the sibling tools. This is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this, so the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain non-existent parameters, and the schema already covers the empty parameter structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function as a connectivity test. It uses a specific verb 'test' and resource 'connectivity', distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on drift detection and health checks. However, it could more explicitly contrast with the overlapping 'health_check' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or why one would choose ping over health_check or drift scans. This is a clear omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detection tools differentiated by drift type. Minor overlap exists between health_check and ping, as well as control_drift and evidence_drift sharing degraded controls, but descriptions provide enough context to avoid confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming pattern is mixed: detect_* tools consistently use verb_noun, but drift_history and drift_status follow noun_noun, and full_drift_scan is a compound noun. While readable, the inconsistency makes the set feel less cohesive.
Tool Count4/5
15 tools is slightly above average but justified by the broad scope of drift detection and management. Each tool earns its place, covering detection, viewing, configuration, and remediation without obvious redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full drift lifecycle: detection (multiple types), full scan, history, status, configuration, manual marking/resolving, and automated remediation. Minor gaps like lacking a single-event detail view are not critical for core workflows.