echo
Sends back the exact message input, allowing testing of server connectivity.
Instructions
Echo back a message
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Message to echo back |
Sends back the exact message input, allowing testing of server connectivity.
Echo back a message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Message to echo back |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior ('echo back a message') but does not disclose any additional traits such as return format or side effects. For a trivial tool this is acceptable, but it adds no insight beyond the schema.
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, four-word sentence that is maximally concise and front-loaded. Each word is necessary and there is no wasted content.
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 extremely simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is brief but sufficient for the trivial purpose; the return behavior (echoing the message) is self-evident from the tool name and description.
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 fully documents the single parameter 'message' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Echo back a message' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('echo') and resource ('message'). It is immediately distinguishable from the listed sibling tools, which are unrelated.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the function without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rushit-simform/react-workflow-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server