Check agent liveness by sending a ping and receiving a pong response.
Agent liveness probe (returns pong). Do not use wrong RPC names as probes.
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": "ping"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior fully. It states 'returns pong' but doesn't detail side effects, failure conditions, or the implications of using wrong RPC names. Minimal transparency.
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 sentences, but the second sentence ('Do not use wrong RPC names as probes') is cryptic and may not earn its place. Concise but not optimally structured for clarity.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate for a simple liveness check. However, it lacks details about expected response format (plain text?) and error cases. The warning hints at problematic usage but doesn't elaborate.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no value here, but baseline is 4 as per rubric since it cannot be improved.
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?
Clear that it's a liveness probe returning pong; distinct from sibling tools like dual_ping or session_status. The warning about 'wrong RPC names' adds confusion but doesn't obscure purpose.
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?
Describes when to use as a liveness probe, but no guidance on when not to use or alternatives like dual_ping or probe_help. The warning is ambiguous and doesn't help select this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.