Skip to main content
Glama

ping

Check if the Frappe MCP Server is responding to verify connectivity and server status.

Instructions

A simple tool to check if the server is responding.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The ping tool handler: a simple function that returns 'pong' to confirm server responsiveness.
    @mcp.tool()
    def ping() -> str:
        """A simple tool to check if the server is responding."""
        return "pong"
  • src/server.py:39-39 (registration)
    Registration of the helpers module tools, including ping, with the MCP server instance.
    helpers.register_tools(mcp)
  • The register_tools function in helpers.py that defines and registers the ping tool using the @mcp.tool decorator.
    def register_tools(mcp: Any) -> None:
        """Register helper tools with the MCP server."""
        
        @mcp.tool()
        def ping() -> str:
            """A simple tool to check if the server is responding."""
            return "pong"
        
        @mcp.tool()
        def version() -> str:
            """Get version information for the Frappe MCP server."""
            return f"Frappe MCP Server version {__version__}"
        
        @mcp.tool()
        def validate_auth() -> Dict[str, Any]:
            """Validate API credentials and return authentication status."""
            return validate_api_credentials()
Behavior2/5

Does 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 the tool checks server responsiveness, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't specify details like response format, timeouts, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to understand quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits or usage context. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it could benefit from more completeness for a standalone tool.

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 doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as checking server responsiveness with the phrase 'check if the server is responding.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('server'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'validate_auth' or 'version' that might also test connectivity. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to other tools like 'validate_auth' for authentication checks or 'version' for server status. Usage is implied as a basic connectivity test, but there are no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/appliedrelevance/frappe-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server