Verify Onda terminal is online and responsive. Run this health check to confirm the terminal is ready for commands.
Health check - verify Onda is running and responsive.
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": "onda_ping"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, latency) or any side effects. The lack of explicit safety or output behavior is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of nine words, front-loaded with 'Health check' and devoid of filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no params, no annotations, no output schema), so the description covers the basic purpose but misses return value expectations and selection criteria. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps that an agent must infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function as a 'Health check' and specifies the resource 'Onda', making it distinct from sibling tools that perform operational actions. The verb 'verify' and noun 'running and responsive' precisely convey the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Health check' implies using this tool to confirm Onda's status, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. With many sibling tools like `onda_status` and `onda_context`, the description leaves selection to inference rather than providing direct differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.