Up Banking MCP Server

up_ping

Test the Up Banking API connection and verify authentication is working properly.

Instructions

Test the Up API connection and verify authentication is working

Tool call template

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": "up_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Implementation Reference

src/index.ts:385-395 (handler)

MCP tool handler for 'up_ping': invokes UpApiClient.ping() and formats the result as text content.

case "up_ping": {
  const result = await client.ping();
  return {
    content: [
      {
        type: "text",
        text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
      },
    ],
  };
}

src/index.ts:218-226 (registration)

Tool registration in TOOLS array, including name, description, and empty input schema.

{
  name: "up_ping",
  description:
    "Test the Up API connection and verify authentication is working",
  inputSchema: {
    type: "object",
    properties: {},
  },
},

src/index.ts:119-121 (helper)
UpApiClient.ping() helper method: performs authenticated GET to Up API /util/ping endpoint via makeRequest.
```
async ping(): Promise<{ meta: { id: string; statusEmoji: string } }> {
  return this.makeRequest("/util/ping");
}
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2025

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose (testing connection and authentication) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, error responses, or what constitutes a successful test. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but provides only basic operational context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Test the Up API connection') and adds necessary detail ('verify authentication is working'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place in conveying the tool's function clearly and directly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It explains what the tool does and why, though it could enhance completeness by mentioning expected outputs or error handling. However, for a simple connectivity test, it provides adequate context.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics (as there are none), but this is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Test the Up API connection') and resource ('Up API'), with the additional purpose of verifying authentication. It distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve data (e.g., up_get_account, up_list_transactions) by focusing on connectivity testing rather than data operations.

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?

The description implies usage context ('verify authentication is working'), suggesting this tool should be used to check API connectivity and auth status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for actual data retrieval) or name alternatives, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server