The server's message of the day: version, staff by role, activity, and where to start.
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": "server_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the contents of the response (version, staff by role, activity, starting point), which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs. It stops short of stating whether the call has side effects or costs anything, though a zero-parameter tool is implicitly a plain read.
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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the payload and wastes nothing. The colon-list style is efficient, mildly telegraphic but still readable.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does list the payload parts (version, staff by role, activity, next steps). That is adequate for a trivial zero-argument informational tool, though it does not describe shape or size of the response.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on 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 a concrete resource (the server's message of the day) and enumerates its contents: version, staff by role, activity, and where to start. An agent can tell what it returns, though nothing distinguishes it from similarly shaped siblings such as help or status.
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 phrase 'where to start' hints that this is an onboarding/orientation tool, implicitly suggesting first use. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative such as help or status.
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.