anyindex-mcp

ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check server liveness and retrieve resolved configuration to confirm client setup before searching the local codebase.

Instructions

Liveness probe. Returns the resolved configuration so client setup can be verified.

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
`echo`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`echo`	Yes
`node`	Yes
`root`	Yes
`index`	Yes
`model`	Yes
`models`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that it returns the resolved configuration for client verification, which is the actual behavioral purpose of a ping in this context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and followed by the return behavior. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the tool's purpose and return intent well. The only shortfall is the undocumented 'echo' parameter, which for a trivial probe is a minor omission.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single parameter 'echo' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden – yet it never mentions 'echo' or what it does. A caller cannot tell whether supplying echo changes the response, which is a meaningful gap.

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+resource for a diagnostic tool: 'Liveness probe' plus 'Returns the resolved configuration.' An agent can distinguish this from the index-oriented siblings (index_status, anyindex_search, etc.) without opening the schema, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

It implies usage ('so client setup can be verified') but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives. For a self-evident liveness probe this is adequate but not instructive.

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

Deploy Server