Check connectivity by sending an echo message to confirm server responsiveness.
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.
v1.4.0Does 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. 'Echo' only restates the core action and implies the prompt is returned, but it does not state side effects, safety traits, or response format. For a trivial tool this is minimally acceptable, but it still lacks explicit behavioral transparency.
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?
While the description is extremely concise, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. A single word without context is not a well-formed definition, and the conciseness is the result of omission rather than careful pruning.
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?
Despite the tool's low complexity, the description leaves out important context such as the intended use (e.g., connectivity test or echo of user input) and the fact that the given prompt will be returned. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return behavior, but it does not.
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?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with the description 'Message to echo' for the prompt parameter. The description 'Echo' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 is a single word, 'Echo', which names an action but does not specify the resource or what is echoed. It is not a complete statement of purpose and leaves ambiguity about whether it echoes the prompt parameter or something else. This is more like a vague fragment than a clear tool definition.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the sibling tools. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent receives no context to decide whether to call ping instead of ask-gemini or brainstorm.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.