Skip to main content
Glama
bitrefill

Bitrefill Search and Shop

Official
by bitrefill

ping

Verify Bitrefill API availability to ensure cryptocurrency shopping functions operate correctly before transactions.

Instructions

Check if the Bitrefill API is available

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool registration and handler for 'ping': registers the tool with empty input schema and handles execution by calling MiscService.ping(), formatting the response as JSON text, with error handling.
    /**
     * Ping tool
     * Checks if the API is available
     * @returns Ping response
     */
    server.tool(
      "ping",
      "Check if the Bitrefill API is available",
      {},
      async () => {
        try {
          const ping = await MiscService.ping();
          return {
            content: [
              { type: "text" as const, text: JSON.stringify(ping, null, 2) }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          const errorMessage = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: JSON.stringify({ error: errorMessage }, null, 2),
              },
            ],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • Zod schema defining the structure of the ping API response (used for type safety in services).
    export const PingResponseSchema = z.object({
      meta: z.object({
        _endpoint: z.string(),
      }),
      message: z.string().describe("Ping response message"),
    });
  • MiscService.ping(): Thin wrapper that delegates to the authenticated API client ping method.
    public static async ping(): Promise<PingResponse> {
      return authenticatedApiClient.ping();
    }
  • AuthenticatedApiClient.ping(): Makes the actual HTTP GET request to the '/ping' endpoint on Bitrefill API.
    public async ping(): Promise<PingResponse> {
      return this.makeRequest<PingResponse>(
        "ping",
        {
          method: "GET",
          headers: DEFAULT_HEADERS,
        }
      );
    }
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of checking availability, which is useful, but doesn't add details like response format (e.g., returns a status message), error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., latency). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the check entails or what the response indicates, which could be helpful for an agent despite the simplicity.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate, and adds value by specifying what is being checked ('Bitrefill API'), giving it a baseline score of 4 for effectively handling the lack of parameters.

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 ('Check') and target resource ('Bitrefill API'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'categories', 'detail', and 'search' which presumably handle data retrieval rather than availability testing. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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—when you need to verify API availability—but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify whether this should be used before other operations or as a standalone health check, though the context is reasonably clear from the purpose.

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/bitrefill/bitrefill-mcp-server'

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