Echoes a prompt message back to verify connectivity with the Antigravity MCP Server and confirm MCP clients can reach the tool endpoint.
Echo
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ping"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | No | Message to echo |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It adds no new information about side effects, safety, or operational behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single word. While efficient, it could be more informative without losing conciseness. It earns its place but is minimal.
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 simple tool with no required parameters, annotations present, and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not explain the tool's role as a connectivity check or how it relates to sibling tools.
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 100%, with the parameter 'prompt' described as 'Message to echo'. The description 'Echo' adds no additional meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description 'Echo' provides minimal clarity. It suggests the tool returns the input but does not explicitly state a specific verb-resource action like 'test connectivity'. Compared to siblings like 'health' or 'help', the purpose is vague.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'health' or 'metrics', nor does it specify any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.