getV01ServersServerNameVersionsVersionGet specific MCP server version - Returns detailed information about a specific version of an MCP server. Use the special version latest to get the latest version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | ||
| serverName | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about the 'latest' special version and promises detailed information, going beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content.
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 read-only tool with two string parameters, the description adequately covers purpose and key behavior. The lack of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by the straightforward nature of the tool; more detail on return structure would be nice but is not essential.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'version' parameter's special value ('latest') and clarifies the resource context. The 'serverName' parameter is self-explanatory from the tool name and context, making the description sufficient for both parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('specific MCP server version'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list servers or versions. The mention of the special 'latest' value adds further precision.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool (retrieve a specific version) and provides guidance on using the 'latest' special value. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the distinction self-evident.
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 level: all servers, versions of a specific server, and a specific version. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names follow the same pattern of getV01Servers + path segments, making the hierarchy clear and predictable. The naming is consistent and accurately reflects the API endpoints.
Three tools is a well-scoped set for a read-only registry server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers the typical registry lookup workflow: list servers, list versions, and fetch a specific version (including 'latest'). A minor gap is the lack of a direct way to list all servers with their latest versions in a single call, requiring multiple requests.