Check whether a specific IP address or hostname is reachable by sending ICMP ping packets. Use it to verify network connectivity and diagnose host availability problems.
Ping a specific host to check if it's reachable
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | IP address or hostname to ping |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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 what the tool does but not expected behaviors such as timeouts, return format, output details, or whether it relies on standard ICMP. This leaves the behavior noticeably underspecified.
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 one short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently states the action and purpose, making excellent use of every word.
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 one-parameter tool, the description is economical, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, latency, raw ping output). This is a moderate gap for an agent that must interpret the result of the call.
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 fully documents the single 'host' parameter, including its type and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 uses the specific verb 'Ping' and names the resource 'a specific host', with the goal 'check if it's reachable'. It clearly conveys the core action, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling check_port, which also tests reachability.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools like scan_network or check_port. The phrase 'check if it's reachable' implies the scenario of testing host connectivity, but the usage context is only implicit rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.