A simple tool that returns "Pong". Can be used to test connectivity and authentication to the MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The response message. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and adds the useful context that this tool serves as a connectivity and authentication check. For a tool with no parameters and no side effects, the behavior is fully disclosed by combining the description with the annotation.
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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and immediately provides the practical use case, making it easy for an agent to understand without extra reading.
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?
Given the tool's trivial complexity, zero parameters, annotation-provided read-only status, and presence of an output schema, the description contains everything an agent needs. No additional behavioral or parameter context is necessary.
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 has zero parameters and requires none, so the description does not need to document inputs. The baseline for a parameter-less tool is high, and the description fully avoids any parameter ambiguity.
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 clearly identifies the tool as returning "Pong", a simple connectivity check, and distinguishes it from the many content-management siblings by its specific purpose. The verb and resource are concrete, and the tool name aligns with the intended behavior.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to test connectivity and authentication to the MCP. It does not offer exclusions or contrast with alternatives, but the guidance is clear and sufficient for a no-parameter ping operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: media, palettes, projects, question banks, Riddle builds, publish lifecycle, tags, and templates are cleanly separated. Even near-neighbors like question_bank_get versus question_bank_get_items or riddle_tag versus question_bank_tag are disambiguated by explicit scope descriptions.
Names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case domain-prefix plus action pattern, such as riddle_get, riddle_publish, question_bank_create, and media_delete. Minor deviations like question_bank_item, question_bank_manage, and the standalone ping/whoami break the pattern slightly.
At 38 tools, the set is well above the 25+ threshold and is heavy for an agent to navigate in a single context. Most tools are individually justified, but the surface could be consolidated, particularly around tag operations, template listing variants, and question bank actions.
The Riddle lifecycle is well covered: build, validate, update, publish, unpublish, move, rename, delete, embed, tag, and fetch stats. Minor gaps remain, such as no template delete/update, no media library listing, and no project create/update/delete, but these are workable around or arguably outside the core domain.