pingChecks AppyWay API connectivity by calling the GET health endpoint on Explorer, Traffic Data, and Reference sections to report which an API key can access; run first to diagnose 401 or 403 errors.
Calls GET /ping on each AppyWay API section (Explorer, Traffic Data, Reference) and reports which ones this API key can reach. Use it first when other tools report 401 or 403.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them by disclosing that it fans out to three named API sections and returns per-section reachability, which is not inferable from the annotations or the empty schema.
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?
Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential fact first and the actionable trigger second. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padding.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description adequately conveys the return shape ('reports which ones this API key can reach'). For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic whose annotations carry the safety profile, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.
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?
States a specific verb and mechanism ('Calls GET /ping on each AppyWay API section') plus the outcome ('reports which ones this API key can reach'). This clearly distinguishes it from all domain-data siblings like find_parking_rules_near or list_authorities, which fetch business data rather than test reachability.
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?
Provides a clear triggering condition: 'Use it first when other tools report 401 or 403.' That tells the agent when to reach for this tool versus the siblings. It does not state an explicit when-not or offer other alternatives, so it falls short of the top tier but is well above the bare-context threshold.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.