Graphistry MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ping

Check Graphistry MCP server health status to verify connectivity and operational state for graph visualization and analytics.

Instructions

Health check for Graphistry MCP server.

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
`ctx`	No

Implementation Reference

src/graphistry_mcp_server/server.py:51-55 (handler)

The ping tool handler: performs a health check, sends 'pong' via context if available, and returns status 'ok' with Graphistry version.

async def ping(ctx: Optional[Context] = None) -> Dict[str, Any]:
    """Health check for Graphistry MCP server."""
    if ctx:
        await ctx.info("pong")
    return {"status": "ok", "graphistry_version": getattr(graphistry, "__version__", "unknown")}

src/graphistry_mcp_server/server.py:50-50 (registration)
The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the ping function as an MCP tool.
```
@mcp.tool()
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Health check' which implies a read-only diagnostic operation, but doesn't specify what constitutes a successful check, what response to expect, whether it has side effects, or any performance/rate limiting considerations. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably returns server status information.

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, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool.

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?

For a health check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a health check, what information is returned, what success/failure looks like, or how to interpret results. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 one optional parameter 'ctx' with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, but since there's only one optional parameter (context injection for MCP capabilities), this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, and having one optional parameter with clear schema documentation (even if not in the description) keeps this at 4.

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 as a 'Health check for Graphistry MCP server' - it specifies the verb ('Health check') and target resource ('Graphistry MCP server'). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools which are graph manipulation/visualization tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 typical use cases (e.g., verifying server connectivity, troubleshooting), prerequisites, or relationships to other tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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

Deploy Server