Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sora Commander

Sora Commander

by kurojack-jp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ping

Run a read-only health probe against the connected MCP Host to check basic responsiveness; requires no input and does not confirm remote readiness.

Instructions

Use for a quick, read-only health probe of the connected MCP Host. No input; does not establish that protected remote readiness, Broker acceptance, or a particular tool is exposed in ChatGPT.

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

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the read-only, side-effect-free nature of the call plus the limits of what a success result proves. It does not describe the response shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the use case, then qualifies scope. The trailing clause leans on unexplained internal terms ('Broker acceptance,' 'ChatGPT'), which costs a bit of clarity but the overall statement is compact and waste-free.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a trivial zero-parameter probe with an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety profile, and the main misinterpretation risk. The only gap is that the domain-specific limitations are stated without enough context for an agent unfamiliar with the Broker/ChatGPT framing.

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 takes zero parameters and the description confirms 'No input,' which matches the empty schema. There is nothing further to clarify, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a 'quick, read-only health probe of the connected MCP Host.' That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like status, review_status, and request_status, which imply richer state reports, although no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It says when to use it ('quick, read-only health probe') and adds a clear negative scope: it does not prove protected remote readiness, Broker acceptance, or that a given tool is exposed. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use when those deeper checks are needed.

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