ping
Check that the Magic Hour MCP server is reachable.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Magic Hour
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a non-mutating reachability check, but it provides no additional detail about response format, timing, or error behavior. For such a minimal tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no wasted phrasing or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple reachability check with no parameters and no complex behavior. The description, combined with the provided output schema, gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed for an empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Check') and a specific resource ('the Magic Hour MCP server'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates from the long list of sibling creation tools, which all perform media generation or management operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the tool is for verifying server reachability, which provides sufficient context for when to use it. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, but none are relevant given the unique purpose among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most generation tools target distinct media types or effects (e.g., clothes changer, head swap, lip sync), but several boundaries blur: ai_image_editor_create_image is a generic edit tool that overlaps conceptually with ai_face_editor_edit_image, ai_image_upscaler_create_image, and background remover. The wait_for_*_project helpers also overlap functionally with the *_projects_retrieve_details status tools, and ai_voice_cloner_create_audio vs. ai_voice_generator_create_audio are easy to confuse by name.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are mixed: many tools follow ai_<product>_create_<media>, but others are product-first (animation_create_video, body_swap_create_image) and resource-group tools follow a different noun_verb pattern (audio_projects_retrieve_details, video_projects_delete). Verbs are inconsistent too (create_image, edit_image, detect_faces, retrieve_details, wait_for, fetch), so an agent cannot reliably predict the next tool name.
Tool Count2/5
At 44 tools, the set is heavy: it includes 27 generation tools plus three wait helpers, three status retrieval tools, three delete tools, three fetch helpers, and upload/ping utilities. While the underlying product is broad, many helpers could be consolidated, and the overall surface exceeds the range where each tool earns a clear place.
Completeness3/5
The lifecycle is mostly covered for image, video, and audio projects: create, poll/retrieve, fetch download, delete, and file upload/presigned-URL generation are all present. However, there is no project listing or cancel operation, and face detection only has detect/details with no delete or wait helper, leaving some workflow gaps an agent must work around.