Algorand MCP Server

echo

Test connectivity and verify message transmission within the Algorand blockchain network by returning the exact input provided.

Instructions

Echo back the provided message

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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "echo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes	The message to echo back

Implementation Reference

src/index.ts:421-431 (handler)

The handler function for the 'echo' tool, which parses the input arguments using EchoArgsSchema and returns the echoed message.

case 'echo': {
    const parsed = EchoArgsSchema.parse(args);
    return {
        content: [
            {
                type: 'text',
                text: `Echo: ${parsed.message}`,
            },
        ],
    };
}

src/index.ts:21-23 (schema)
Zod schema for validating the input arguments of the 'echo' tool.
```
const EchoArgsSchema = z.object({
    message: z.string(),
});
```

src/index.ts:100-113 (registration)

Registration of the 'echo' tool in the TOOLS array, including its name, description, and JSON input schema.

{
    name: 'echo',
    description: 'Echo back the provided message',
    inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
            message: {
                type: 'string',
                description: 'The message to echo back',
            },
        },
        required: ['message'],
    },
},

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 15, 2025

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'echoes back' the message, implying a simple read/return operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence: 'Echo back the provided message.' There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by directly explaining the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one simple parameter) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and return values, which could be helpful for an agent. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps in operational 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 description mentions 'the provided message,' which aligns with the single parameter 'message' in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema already describes 'message' as 'The message to echo back'), the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('echo back') and resource ('the provided message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (calculator, current_time), which are completely different functions, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation but could be more specific about what makes 'echo' unique in this context.

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 any context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like calculator or current_time, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic function.

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

Deploy Server