Check connectivity to the ClassQuill MCP server to verify API access is available before proceeding.
Ping
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| org_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds zero behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description does not disclose what the tool does, what it returns, or any operational traits. No contradiction exists, but no value is added either.
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?
One word is concise, but this is under-specification rather than efficient writing. The description 'Ping' repeats the tool name and earns no place; a phrase like 'Check API connectivity' would be equally concise and informative.
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 rich annotations and empty schema, the description is completely inadequate for a tool among many get_/list_ siblings. It does not explain that this is a liveness or health-check operation, leaving the agent to guess what the tool does and when to use it.
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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The 100% schema description coverage and absence of parameters make this dimension non-issue, warranting the 0-param baseline of 4.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 given on when to use this tool versus any sibling, nor any context for invocation. The description is just 'Ping', with no mention of health checks, readiness probes, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.