RequestRepo MCP

by hofill

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

ping

Test connectivity to the RequestRepo MCP server's websocket connection to verify active communication channels.

Instructions

Ping the underlying requestrepo websocket connection.

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
No arguments

Implementation Reference

src/requestrepo_mcp/server.py:480-483 (registration)
MCP tool registration for 'ping' using @mcp.tool() decorator. This registers the ping function as an available MCP tool with the description 'Ping the underlying requestrepo websocket connection.'
```
@mcp.tool()
def ping() -> dict[str, Any]:
    """Ping the underlying requestrepo websocket connection."""
    return resolved_service.ping()
```
src/requestrepo_mcp/server.py:314-315 (handler)
Service layer handler for ping operation. Calls the underlying requestrepo client's ping() method and wraps the boolean result in a dictionary with key 'ok'.
```
def ping(self) -> dict[str, Any]:
    return {"ok": self._client().ping()}
```
tests/test_service.py:108-109 (helper)
Test mock implementation of ping() in FakeClient class. Returns True to simulate a successful websocket ping during testing.
```
def ping(self) -> bool:
    return True
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Feb 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('ping') but doesn't explain what happens during execution (e.g., whether it sends a test message, waits for response, or returns latency). It also omits critical details like error conditions, timeout behavior, or whether it affects the connection state.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context that would help an agent use it effectively. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description doesn't hint at what the output might contain (e.g., success status or latency).

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this simple case.

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 action ('ping') and the target ('underlying requestrepo websocket connection'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (like 'session_info' which might also test connectivity), so it doesn't reach the highest 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 prerequisites, timing considerations, or suggest other tools for related functions (e.g., using 'session_info' for connection status). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

Deploy Server