pingCheck the server's liveness: sends a health check and expects a 'pong' response.
Liveness/health check for the Presentation MCP server. Returns 'pong'.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| echo | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning 'pong' but does not explain how the 'echo' parameter affects the response, leaving ambiguity about tool behavior when parameters are supplied.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return value. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a trivial 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 simple health check, the core behavior is documented, and default invocation without parameters is clear. However, the omission of the echo parameter means an agent cannot fully understand optional usage, a notable gap given the absence of schema descriptions and output schema.
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?
The schema includes a single 'echo' parameter with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, providing no guidance on its meaning, usage, or accepted values.
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?
Clearly defines the tool as a liveness/health check and specifies the return value 'pong'. This specific verb+resource phrasing naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools, which all deal with presentation tasks.
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?
States that it is a liveness/health check, implying its intended use for verifying server availability. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but none exist among siblings, so the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.