fios-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ping

Read-only

Sends 1–20 ICMP echo requests from the router to an IPv4 target to verify reachability and troubleshoot connectivity issues.

Instructions

Ping an IPv4 address from the router itself (1-20 packets).

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`target`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the originating host and the 1-20 packet bound, but says nothing about blocking behavior, timeout/duration, or how failures are reported.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers origin, protocol, and packet bounds. Missing only edge behavior such as blocking duration or unreachable-host reporting, which is minor for a low-complexity two-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add the IPv4-only constraint on target and the 1-20 range on count, which are genuinely useful, but omits the default count of 4 and any timeout or per-packet detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ("ping an IPv4 address") and adds the crucial scope qualifier "from the router itself," which separates it from client-side diagnostics. It does not name a sibling tool directly, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase "from the router itself" implies the origin of the probe and therefore when this is preferable to other diagnostics, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus router_diagnostics or when not to use it. Usage is only implied.

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