Check server health and metadata by returning pid/version, SDK/CLI info, and buffer size without calling CC.
Return pid/version, SDK/CLI metadata, buffer size; no CC call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| pid | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| cli_path | No | ||
| cli_version | No | ||
| sdk_version | No | ||
| max_buffer_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: routing to ping does not trigger a CC call, so it is side-effect-free and cheap. It does not say whether it is safe to call at any frequency, whether it requires the server to be running, or what it does not touch.
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?
A single short line with the returned fields front-loaded before the 'no CC call' qualifier. It is efficient, though the abbreviations ('CC', 'SDK/CLI metadata') are terse enough to be slightly ambiguous to an agent unfamiliar with the codebase.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and there are no parameters to document. For a zero-arg diagnostic tool the description supplies what is needed to call it correctly; only the missing usage routing and the cryptic 'CC' abbreviation hold it below 5.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side, and it correctly says nothing extra about arguments.
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 names the concrete payload (pid/version, SDK/CLI metadata, buffer size), so an agent can infer this is a lightweight diagnostic/health probe. But the phrasing is telegraphic, and it never distinguishes this from siblings like get_job_status or execute_task, whose names give no hint that ping is the cheap liveness check.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The trailing 'no CC call' implies a cheap probe that avoids a model invocation, which is a usable hint, but the description never states when to prefer ping over get_job_status or the run/execute tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.