Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Copilot Desktop MCP

Copilot Desktop MCP

by avianhermana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Ping Host

ping_host
Read-only

Ping an IP address or domain to measure latency and packet loss, helping diagnose network connectivity issues.

Instructions

Ping a host (IP or domain name) and report latency and packet loss.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "ping_host"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYes
countNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-destructive read, so the description's main added value is naming the metrics returned (latency, packet loss). It says nothing about timeouts, blocking duration, failure behavior for unreachable hosts, or permissions, which are relevant for a network probe.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every clause (target types, reported metrics) carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the annotation covers safety, which lowers the burden. Still, for a two-parameter network tool with no schema descriptions, the missing explanation of 'count' and of timeout/failure behavior leaves real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only place parameter meaning can come from, and it does clarify that 'host' accepts an IP or a domain name. However, the 'count' parameter and its default of 4 are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Ping a host') plus the reported outputs ('latency and packet loss'), which is concrete enough to identify the operation. It doesn't differentiate from network-adjacent siblings such as dns_lookup or fetch_url, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related tools like dns_lookup or fetch_url, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools