Sends ICMP echo requests to a host or IP address to verify reachability and measure packet loss or latency. Supports configurable count between 1 and 10.
ICMP ping a host or IP. count is clamped to 1-10.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | ||
| count | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior 'ICMP ping' and a notable constraint: 'count is clamped to 1-10.' However, it omits other operationally relevant details such as timeouts, permission requirements, or behavior on unreachable hosts.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed immediately by the single important parameter constraint. 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?
For a simple diagnostic tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it pings and the count limit. It lacks guidance on choosing this tool among the sibling network diagnostics and does not mention edge-case behavior, but the scope is simple enough that the main gaps are about selection rather than invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clarifying that 'host' accepts a hostname or IP address and that 'count' is clamped to 1-10. It does not explicitly say count is the number of ping packets, but that is strongly implied by context.
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 a specific action and target: 'ICMP ping a host or IP.' The protocol qualifier 'ICMP' helps distinguish it from siblings like http_check and tcp_port_check, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as tcp_port_check, http_check, or health_check. The description implies usage for ICMP reachability but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.