Skip to main content
Glama

ping_peer

Ping a specified peer device to test connectivity by sending a defined number of packets. Use the hostname or IP address for the target, enabling network diagnostics via Tailscale MCP Server.

Instructions

Ping a peer device

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of ping packets to send
targetYesHostname or IP address of the target device

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'ping_peer' MCP tool. It takes target hostname/IP and optional count, uses the Tailscale client to perform the ping via CLI, and returns success or error.
    async function pingPeer(
      args: z.infer<typeof PingPeerSchema>,
      context: ToolContext,
    ): Promise<CallToolResult> {
      try {
        logger.debug(`Pinging ${args.target} (${args.count} packets)`);
    
        // Use unified client - this operation is CLI-only
        const result = await context.client.ping(args.target, args.count);
    
        if (!result.success) {
          return returnToolError(result.error);
        }
    
        return returnToolSuccess(
          `Ping results for ${args.target}:\n\n${result.data}`,
        );
      } catch (error: unknown) {
        logger.error("Error pinging peer:", error);
        return returnToolError(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the 'ping_peer' tool: target (string) and count (number, default 4).
    const PingPeerSchema = z.object({
      target: z.string().describe("Hostname or IP address of the target device"),
      count: z
        .number()
        .int()
        .min(1)
        .max(100)
        .optional()
        .default(4)
        .describe("Number of ping packets to send"),
    });
  • Registration of the 'ping_peer' tool in the networkTools module's tools array, linking name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    {
      name: "ping_peer",
      description: "Ping a peer device",
      inputSchema: PingPeerSchema,
      handler: pingPeer,
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention what 'ping' entails (e.g., ICMP echo requests, latency measurement, success/failure criteria), potential side effects, or network requirements, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's complexity (network operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the ping operation returns (e.g., latency stats, success indicators) or how it behaves in different network conditions, making it inadequate for the context.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (target and count). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Ping a peer device' clearly states the action (ping) and target (peer device), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect_network' or 'get_network_status', which might also involve network connectivity testing, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., network diagnostics), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HexSleeves/tailscale-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server