Check connection to KiCad and retrieve version information.
Check connection to KiCad and return version info.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "kicad_ping"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is for checking connection and returning version info, implying it is a safe, read-only operation with no side effects. This is sufficient for the tool's simplicity, though it does not mention error behavior if connection fails.
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 consists of a single, concise sentence that perfectly front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no wasted text.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does: check connectivity and return version info. No additional context is needed.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, but it correctly describes the tool's purpose, meeting the baseline.
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 'Check connection to KiCad and return version info' clearly states the action (check connection) and the returned information (version info), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'kicad_check_version', which likely only returns version without the connectivity check.
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 using this tool to verify connectivity to KiCad, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide any usage context. For a simple health check, this is minimally adequate but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.