Skip to main content
Glama

ping

Check if the Luma AI video and image generation API is operational to verify service availability before creating content.

Instructions

Check if the Luma API is running

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'ping' tool. It makes a GET request to the Luma API's /ping endpoint to check availability and returns a status message.
    async def ping(parameters: dict) -> str:
        """Check if the Luma API is running."""
        try:
            await _make_luma_request("GET", "/ping")
            return "Luma API is available and responding"
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error in ping: {str(e)}", exc_info=True)
            return f"Error pinging Luma API: {str(e)}"
  • Pydantic input schema for the ping tool. It is empty since the ping tool requires no parameters.
    class PingInput(BaseModel):
        pass
  • Tool registration in the list_tools() function, specifying the name, description, and input schema for the ping tool.
    Tool(
        name=LumaTools.PING,
        description="Check if the Luma API is running",
        inputSchema=PingInput.model_json_schema(),
    ),
  • Dispatch logic in the call_tool() function that routes calls to the ping handler and formats the response.
    case LumaTools.PING:
        result = await ping(arguments)
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=result)]
  • Enum value defining the string name 'ping' for the LumaTools.PING constant used in registrations.
    PING = "ping"
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'running' means (e.g., returns status code, latency, version), whether it requires authentication, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple health-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what the check returns (e.g., success/failure, status details) or how to interpret results, leaving the agent guessing about the tool's output behavior.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, which is efficient and correct.

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 'Check if the Luma API is running' with a specific verb ('Check') and target ('Luma API'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (which are unrelated to API status checks), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 considerations, or how it relates to other tools in the server (like checking API status before attempting generation operations).

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/bobtista/luma-ai-mcp-server'

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