Skip to main content
Glama

ping

Check server and backend health status for the ComfyMCP Studio AI game asset generation tool.

Instructions

Check if the MCP server and backend are healthy.

Returns:
    Status message indicating server and backend health

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The 'ping' tool handler: an async function decorated with @mcp.tool() that performs a health check on the backend and returns a JSON status object indicating server health, backend name, type, health status, and timestamp.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def ping() -> str:
        """Check if the MCP server and backend are healthy.
        
        Returns:
            Status message indicating server and backend health
        """
        try:
            backend_healthy = await asyncio.wait_for(backend.health_check(), timeout=5.0)
        except asyncio.TimeoutError:
            backend_healthy = False
        except Exception:
            backend_healthy = False
        return json.dumps({
            "status": "ok",
            "backend": backend.get_name(),
            "backend_type": BACKEND_TYPE,
            "backend_healthy": backend_healthy,
            "timestamp": datetime.now().isoformat()
        }, indent=2)
  • server/main.py:77-77 (registration)
    The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the 'ping' function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only diagnostic nature and return format ('Status message indicating server and backend health'), but doesn't mention potential error conditions, response time expectations, or authentication requirements. It adds value beyond the schema but lacks comprehensive behavioral 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?

Extremely concise with two sentences that each earn their place: first states the purpose, second describes the return value. Perfectly front-loaded with zero wasted words or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose and return value, and the output schema will handle response structure details. The only minor gap is lack of error/edge case information, but for this diagnostic tool, the description provides sufficient context.

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 coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty input. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('MCP server and backend'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are creative generation or processing tools. It explicitly identifies the health-check function that none of the siblings perform.

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 implies usage context (checking server/backend health) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or prerequisites. Since this is a diagnostic tool with no direct functional alternatives among siblings, the implicit guidance is clear but not explicitly comparative.

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/tuannguyen14/ComfyAI-MCP-GameAssets'

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