Skip to main content
Glama
TranQui004

signalint

by TranQui004
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify the Signalint MCP server is responsive before running diagnostics; returns pong with no side effects.

Instructions

Checks whether the Signalint MCP server is responsive. Read-only; returns the string "pong" with no side effects. Use this to verify the server is connected before running diagnostics. Invalid arguments return an error response; no authentication is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pongYesTrue when the server is responsive.
projectRootYesCanonical absolute project root path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedOutput schema / properties / projectRoot
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Canonical absolute project root path.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "pong"
-]New value: +[
+  "pong",
+  "projectRoot"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.7
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "pong": {
+      "description": "True when the server is responsive.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "pong"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the literal return string 'pong', the error behavior on invalid arguments, and the no-authentication requirement, which is not captured by any structured field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage hint and the operational caveats. The 'read-only... no side effects' clause partly restates the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, but the redundancy is minor and the whole entry is tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter health check with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what it returns, that no auth is required, and how errors surface. No gaps remain that would affect a correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to explain beyond the note that invalid arguments produce an error response.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks whether the Signalint MCP server is responsive') and is immediately distinguishable from the domain-specific siblings (check_project, check_files, get_loop_status), which test application state rather than connectivity. An agent can tell this is the generic server liveness probe without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the use case: 'Use this to verify the server is connected before running diagnostics.' It gives clear context for when to reach for it, though it does not state when not to use it or contrast it against the sibling check_* tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools