Skip to main content
Glama
gigapi

GigAPI MCP Server

by gigapi

ping

Check connectivity to the GigAPI Timeseries Lake server to verify network access and server responsiveness for data querying and management.

Instructions

Ping the GigAPI server to check connectivity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_Yes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'ping' MCP tool. It calls the underlying client's ping method and returns a dictionary with the response, success status, and connection status.
    def ping(self) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Ping GigAPI server.
    
        Returns:
            Ping response
        """
        try:
            response = self.client.ping()
            return {
                "response": response,
                "success": True,
                "status": "connected"
            }
        except GigAPIClientError as e:
            logger.error(f"Ping failed: {e}")
            return {
                "error": str(e),
                "success": False,
                "status": "disconnected"
            }
  • The registration of the 'ping' tool using FastMCP's Tool.from_function, binding it to the GigAPITools.ping method with no input parameters.
    Tool.from_function(
        lambda _: tools_instance.ping(),
        name="ping",
        description="Ping the GigAPI server to check connectivity.",
    ),
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks connectivity, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as response format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Ping the GigAPI server to check connectivity.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter's role, what the ping response entails (e.g., success/failure indicators, latency data), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'health_check'. For a connectivity check tool, more context is needed to guide effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one required parameter ('_') with 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter is undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what the parameter represents, its purpose, or how it should be used. This leaves the parameter semantics completely unclear, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'Ping the GigAPI server to check connectivity.' It uses a specific verb ('ping') and identifies the target resource ('GigAPI server'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'health_check', which might serve a similar purpose, preventing a perfect 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 when to use 'ping' over 'health_check' or other connectivity-related tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage information limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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/gigapi/gigapi-mcp'

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