Get device ping data by providing a registration key to check device connectivity and status.
Gets device ping data by registration key.
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": "getpingdata"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Registration key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.20Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral aspects like read-only nature or side effects. It only states 'Gets' which implies reading, but does not explicitly confirm it's safe, idempotent, or clarify what the ping data represents.
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 very short and to the point, but it is so minimal that it sacrifices completeness. It does not abuse verbosity, but also does not provide enough information to be fully effective.
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?
The tool is simple but has no output schema and a sibling with a similar name. The description does not explain what 'ping data' is, what the return format looks like, or any preconditions (e.g., device must exist). This leaves significant gaps.
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 input schema already describes the 'key' parameter as 'Registration key' (100% coverage). The description restates this without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets device ping data') and the required parameter ('by registration key'). However, it does not distinguish from the very similar sibling tool 'getdevicepingdata', lowering the score.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially the sibling 'getdevicepingdata'. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.