greetReturn a Hello World greeting message, optionally including a caller's name, to validate the MCP server's basic functionality.
Greet the caller with a quintessential Hello World message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | The optional name to be greeted. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.0.0Input schema / properties / name / titleRemoved value: -"Name"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"_WrappedResult"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it only mentions the Hello World style. It does not explain the optional name parameter's effect, but that is covered by the schema. With annotations covering safety, the description adds little but does not contradict.
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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.
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?
The tool is trivial with one optional parameter and a clear purpose. Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without further context.
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 schema already fully documents the optional 'name' parameter with its description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 given high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's function: greeting the caller with a Hello World message. The verb 'greet' and the specific 'quintessential Hello World message' make the purpose unambiguous, and the sibling tools are unrelated, so there's no confusion.
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?
The description implies the tool is for greeting scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, the sibling tools are unrelated (password generation, web search, etc.), so the purpose itself provides clear context. No explicit exclusions are given, but the simple nature of the tool makes this acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.