in_pingVerifies the Invoice Ninja URL, API token, and server reachability. Returns an OK status with a sample row count to confirm your connection works.
Verify the Invoice Ninja URL, token and reachability. Returns ok + a sample row count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior: it verifies three things (URL, token, reachability) and reports ok plus a sample row count. It does not describe error/failure output, but the added context beyond annotations is meaningful.
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?
Two clipped sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the return behavior.
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, parameterless diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and what is returned. It is nearly complete, though it could mention failure output or when to run it in a setup workflow.
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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description adds no confusing parameter-related language.
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 states a specific verb and resource: verify the Invoice Ninja URL, token and reachability. It clearly distinguishes this connectivity check from all sibling tools, which are data read/list operations.
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?
The purpose strongly implies when to use it: to confirm configuration and connectivity before or while troubleshooting Invoice Ninja access. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the unique diagnostic role is clear from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.