Check whether a specified Convoy node is reachable using the host-native ping and report its known online state without starting or waking TouchDesigner.
Measure Convoy reachability to one explicit node through the host-native ping operation. It reports the node's known online state without starting or waking TouchDesigner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| convoy_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_s | No | ||
| target_host_id | Yes | ||
| target_node_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.2.67Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a side-effect constraint ('without starting or waking TouchDesigner') and that it reports 'known online state,' which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it omits timeout behavior, failure modes, idempotency handling, and whether the call is read-only or has side effects on Convoy state.
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 tight sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action (measure reachability) and immediately scoped. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a tool with 5 params at 0% coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what target_host_id vs target_node_id mean, what happens on timeout, or how results are surfaced. The non-waking guarantee is the only substantive context provided.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so all five parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'one explicit node' which loosely maps to target_node_id, but target_host_id, convoy_id, timeout_s, and idempotency_key get no semantic explanation. The description fails to compensate for the severe coverage gap.
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 (Measure) and resource (Convoy reachability to one explicit node) via host-native ping. Distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like convoy_get_job or convoy_owlette, but doesn't explicitly name an alternative like get_convoy_status which could confuse an agent choosing between them.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives named. The phrase 'one explicit node' hints at scope, and 'without starting or waking TouchDesigner' implies a non-invasive check, but the agent is left to infer when convoy_ping is preferable to get_convoy_status or get_td_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.