Verify the MCP server's operational status to confirm it is ready for use.
Checks server health
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": {
"ping": "<ping>"
},
"name": "ping_1"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ping | Yes | Example value: ping |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Checks server health' without specifying what the check entails, whether any side effects occur, or what response format is returned. This is minimal transparency.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite the tool's low complexity, the description is insufficient for correct selection because there is a sibling tool with the same name ('ping'). No differentiation or context is provided, and no output schema or annotation exists to fill the gap.
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% for the single parameter 'ping', which includes an example value. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?
Description uses a clear verb 'Checks' and resource 'server health', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'ping' with nearly identical name and likely identical purpose.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'ping' or other alternatives. The description simply states the function without any context, exclusions, or preference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.