Send an MCP protocol ping during an in-flight call to check connection liveness and enforce a bounded timeout, closing on failure if configured.
Send an MCP protocol ping during this in-flight call and apply a bounded liveness policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pingAfterMs | Yes | ||
| closeOnFailure | No | ||
| completionDelayMs | No | ||
| livenessTimeoutMs | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions a 'bounded liveness policy' but never defines the bounds, the failure behavior, the effect of closeOnFailure, the role of completionDelayMs, or any side effects, leaving the tool's runtime behavior largely opaque.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. For a four-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, however, this level of brevity reads as under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness.
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 the four parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is far too thin. It omits parameter semantics, timeout behavior, failure handling, and sibling differentiation, so an agent cannot safely invoke the tool from the description alone.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for four parameters, and the description does not mention pingAfterMs, livenessTimeoutMs, closeOnFailure, or completionDelayMs at all. It therefore adds no meaning beyond the bare schema and fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Send an MCP protocol ping') and adds a scope ('during this in-flight call'), so it is not pure tautology. However, 'apply a bounded liveness policy' is vague, and the description never distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'ping' or explains what the liveness policy actually does.
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?
No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The phrase 'during this in-flight call' hints at a use context, but with siblings like ping, hang, and disconnect available, the agent receives no routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.