Skip to main content
Glama

ping

Check if the LunaTask MCP Server is operational by sending a health-check request and receiving a 'pong' response.

Instructions

Ping health-check tool that returns a static 'pong' response.

This tool serves as a basic health-check endpoint to verify that the MCP server is functioning correctly.

Args: ctx: The execution context providing access to logging and other MCP capabilities.

Returns: str: The 'pong' response text.

Raises: asyncio.CancelledError: If the operation is cancelled during execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The ping tool handler is implemented as an async method within the CoreServer class in src/lunatask_mcp/main.py. It takes a context object and returns 'pong'.
    async def ping_tool(self, ctx: Context) -> str:
        """Ping health-check tool that returns a static 'pong' response.
    
        This tool serves as a basic health-check endpoint to verify that
        the MCP server is functioning correctly.
    
        Args:
            ctx: The execution context providing access to logging and other MCP capabilities.
    
        Returns:
            str: The 'pong' response text.
    
        Raises:
            asyncio.CancelledError: If the operation is cancelled during execution.
        """
        try:
            await ctx.info("Ping tool called, returning pong")
        except asyncio.CancelledError:
            await ctx.info("Ping tool execution cancelled")
            raise
        else:
            return "pong"
  • The ping tool is registered in the CoreServer._register_tools method by passing self.ping_tool to self.app.tool with the name 'ping'.
    def _register_tools(self) -> None:
        """Register all tools and resources with the FastMCP instance."""
        self.app.tool(self.ping_tool, name="ping")
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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only health check (implied by 'ping' and 'verify'), returns a static predictable response ('pong'), and has no parameters. It also mentions potential cancellation behavior via the Raises section, adding useful context beyond basic functionality.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The first two sentences are front-loaded and clear, but the Args/Returns/Raises sections, while informative, could be more concise for a zero-parameter tool. Some information (like the Raises note about CancelledError) is standard MCP boilerplate that doesn't add unique value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, the return value, and potential errors. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, and it adequately covers all necessary aspects for this health-check tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description correctly states there are no args beyond the execution context (which is standard MCP infrastructure). It adds appropriate context about the parameterless nature without needing to compensate for schema gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Ping health-check tool that returns a static 'pong' response' and 'serves as a basic health-check endpoint to verify that the MCP server is functioning correctly.' It uses specific verbs ('ping', 'returns', 'verify') and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools which are CRUD operations for various entities.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'to verify that the MCP server is functioning correctly.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, though the distinction from CRUD siblings is obvious. The guidance is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tensorfreitas/lunatask-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server