Skip to main content
Glama
vjouenne76

MCP Server Scaffold

by vjouenne76

echo

Echo back provided messages to verify communication and test MCP server functionality within the MCP Server Scaffold framework.

Instructions

Echo back the provided message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesThe message to echo back

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'echo' tool that echoes back the provided message in the response content.
    case 'echo':
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: `Echo: ${args.message}`,
          },
        ],
      };
  • Input schema for the 'echo' tool defining the required 'message' string parameter.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        message: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'The message to echo back',
        },
      },
      required: ['message'],
    },
  • src/index.ts:45-58 (registration)
    Registration of the 'echo' tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and schema.
    {
      name: 'echo',
      description: 'Echo back the provided message',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          message: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The message to echo back',
          },
        },
        required: ['message'],
      },
    } as Tool,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action ('Echo back') but lacks details on traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is insufficient to inform the agent about behavioral characteristics beyond the obvious output.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence ('Echo back the provided message') earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. For such a simple tool, this might be sufficient, but it doesn't provide a complete picture for an agent to use it optimally without additional inference.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'message' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or usage examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function ('Echo back') with the specific resource ('the provided message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_current_time', but since they serve fundamentally different purposes (echoing input vs. retrieving time), the distinction is inherently clear without needing explicit comparison.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tool 'get_current_time' is unrelated in function, there's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where 'echo' would be preferred over other potential tools (e.g., for testing or debugging). This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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/vjouenne76/mcp-server-scaffold'

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