galley_pingVerifies that an MCP agent can reach a live Galley Typst project by returning a liveness response with the kernel version, so you can confirm connectivity before reading or editing documents.
Liveness check. Returns 'pong' with the kernel version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| echo | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.10.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload ('pong' plus kernel version), which is the main behavioral fact, but it never states that the call is side-effect-free, whether it can fail/timeout, or how the optional echo parameter affects the response.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste, and the core fact (what it does, what it returns) is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 trivial no-output-schema liveness tool, the description covers purpose and return value adequately, but it omits any explanation of the one parameter and gives no indication of failure behavior. Acceptable but with a clear gap.
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% and the description never mentions the single 'echo' parameter, leaving its purpose (likely echoing the input back alongside 'pong') entirely undocumented. With a non-zero parameter count, the baseline-4 zero-parameter rule does not apply, and the description adds nothing here.
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?
States a specific operation ('Liveness check') and what it returns ('pong' with the kernel version), which is unambiguous against siblings that are all file/edit/compile operations. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, but the function is distinct enough that no agent would confuse it with read_file or compile.
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?
'Liveness check' strongly implies when to call it (verifying the kernel is reachable), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no prerequisite notes, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.