net-mcp

Local Ping

local_ping

Check host reachability by sending ICMP echo requests and reporting round-trip time, packet loss, and latency statistics. Invalid hosts are returned in the result's error field, avoiding exceptions.

Instructions

Ping a host from the local machine.

Sends ICMP echo requests and reports round-trip time, packet loss, and latency statistics. Does not require admin privileges. Invalid hosts are reported in the result's error field rather than raised.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "local_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`host`	Yes	Hostname or IP address to ping (an IPv6 literal may be bracketed)
`count`	No	Number of echo requests to send (1-100)
`timeout`	No	Seconds to wait for each reply (1-30)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Additional context about the result
`error`	No	Why the tool could not produce a result: input validation failure, tool disabled by configuration, binary not installed, or no service answered. Empty when the command executed.
`stderr`	Yes	Standard error of the command, or the failure message when the command did not run
`stdout`	Yes	Standard output of the command (curl output is capped at 10,000 characters)
`command`	Yes	The exact command line that was executed, or the tool name if the command never ran
`success`	Yes	True when the command ran and exited with status 0
`platform`	Yes	Operating system the command ran on (Darwin, Linux or Windows)
`returncode`	Yes	Process exit status. 0 = success; 2 = input rejected before running; 124 = timed out; 126 = disabled by config or permission denied; 127 = binary not found

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two valuable behaviors: no admin privileges required, and invalid hosts are reported in the result's error field rather than raised. It also states the output statistics (round-trip time, packet loss, latency). This goes beyond a minimal statement and helps the agent set expectations.

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?

The description is four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, behavior/statistics, privilege requirement, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no redundant or filler text. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters; an output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented there. The description covers the key behavioral aspects (no admin, error handling) and enough detail to differentiate from siblings. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites like network connectivity, but that is implied for a ping tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (host, count, timeout). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'ping' and the resource 'host from the local machine', and further clarifies it sends ICMP echo requests and reports latency statistics. This differentiates it from siblings like local_traceroute (path tracing) and local_mtr (combined ping+traceroute), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases (e.g., basic reachability checks) or when to prefer other local_* tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool's name and generic description.

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