AgentsID Guard

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

network_ping

Assess host availability and response time via ICMP ping. Provide a hostname or IP and optional ping count to diagnose network issues.

Instructions

Ping a host. Requires network.read permission.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "network_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes	Hostname or IP to ping
`count`	No	Number of pings (default: 4)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the permission requirement 'Requires network.read permission', which is valuable. However, it does not describe the expected output, error behavior, or side effects beyond the permission note.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and a key requirement, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema. The description does not explain what the ping result will contain (e.g., latency, packet loss), which is a gap given no output schema. It also does not address when to use ping versus related network tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides full coverage for both parameters (host and count) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Ping a host' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_traceroute and network_dns by focusing on the ping operation, a standard network diagnostic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking host reachability via ping but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does note the required permission, which is a prerequisite, but does not state exclusions or alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.