local-agent-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check local MCP bridge

ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the health of the local-agent bridge process without reading project files. Use this to verify connectivity and status quickly.

Instructions

Return bridge process health without accessing project files.

Tool call template

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": "ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool does not access project files, which is useful context beyond annotations and aligns with the read-only nature. No contradictions.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return bridge process health') and immediately adds the key constraint ('without accessing project files'). No wasted words, perfectly sized for a zero-parameter health check.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and the key limitation, leaving nothing essential missing for correct invocation.

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, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing any parameters. The output schema provides return structure, so no additional parameter semantics needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('bridge process health'), and a distinguishing constraint ('without accessing project files'). It immediately tells the agent what the tool does and sets it apart from file-oriented siblings like list_files and read_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is a health check but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any context like 'use before other operations to verify connectivity.' The lack of explicit guidance leaves the agent to infer typical usage, which is acceptable but not exceptional.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.