Frappe MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check Frappe connection

frappe_ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Test connectivity and credentials for the configured Frappe/ERPNext site to diagnose whether failures stem from network or authentication issues rather than invalid doctypes or documents.

Instructions

Check connectivity and credentials against the configured Frappe/ERPNext site. Use first when another tool fails, to tell a network or credential problem apart from a bad doctype or document name. This is a diagnostic, not a data tool — it never reads or writes documents. Behavior: read-only and idempotent, with no side effects. A pong proves the site is reachable and that FRAPPE_API_KEY/FRAPPE_API_SECRET authenticate; it does not prove the API user has permission for any particular DocType. Failure surfaces as a connection error (site unreachable, wrong URL, TLS problem) or an auth error (bad key or secret). Parameters: none by design — the target site and credentials come from the server's own environment, never from the caller, so this tool cannot be aimed at a different host. Returns: {"message": "pong"}.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes	The literal string 'pong' when the site is reachable and the credentials authenticate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0Nov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "The literal string 'pong' when the site is reachable and the credentials authenticate.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: what a pong does and does not prove (reachability/auth yes, per-DocType permission no), and the two failure classes (connection error vs auth error). That is substantive disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is well front-loaded with purpose and usage before behavior details, and the labeled sections aid scanning. The only waste is the trailing 'Returns: {"message": "pong"},' which duplicates the output schema and could be dropped.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, routing guidance, what success proves, failure modes, and why no arguments exist. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, but the description earns the extra point by explaining why there are none — the site and credentials come from the server's environment, 'never from the caller' — and the security consequence that the tool 'cannot be aimed at a different host.' That is meaningful parameter-level context not present in the empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check connectivity and credentials against the configured Frappe/ERPNext site.' It explicitly positions itself against the sibling CRUD tools by calling itself 'a diagnostic, not a data tool,' so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states exactly when to reach for it — 'Use first when another tool fails' — and what decision it supports: separating network/credential problems from bad doctype or document names. That is explicit when-to-use guidance tied to the sibling tools' failure modes.

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

Deploy Server