Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gemini-mcp-bridge

gemini-mcp-bridge

by hampsterx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies Gemini CLI setup and authentication, returning CLI version, auth status, model list, and server version for fast environment health checks.

Instructions

Health check. Verifies gemini CLI is installed and authenticated, reports CLI version, auth status, configured models, and server version. Fast (~1s, no model call).

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is fast (~1s) and makes no model call. No contradictions with annotations.

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 highly concise, starting with 'Health check.' and providing key details in two sentences. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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, no output schema), the description is complete: it states the purpose, what it verifies, what it reports (CLI version, auth status, models, server version), and performance characteristics. Nothing missing for an agent to use it effectively.

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, and the schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional information is necessary.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a health check that verifies CLI installation and authentication, and reports version/status details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query and search, which are data-retrieval operations.

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 for health verification (e.g., before other operations) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Context is clear but usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools