Build-Stand des laufenden Planner-Service: version (fortlaufende Build-Nummer), gitCommit, buildTime (UTC). Fuer Support-Anfragen und um Ergebnisse einem Software-Stand zuzuordnen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the returned data fields (version, gitCommit, buildTime). It implies a read-only operation and does not mention side effects, which is appropriate for this simple info tool.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and data, the second specifies the use case. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, output schema exists but description lists the key fields), the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool returns and when to use it.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since no parameters exist.
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 states the tool returns the build status of the Planner-Service, naming specific fields (version, gitCommit, buildTime). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like account_balance or solve_submit, which have different purposes.
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 says the tool is intended for support requests and mapping results to a software version, providing clear context. It does not list exclusions, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient guidance.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: account_balance for token info, example_payload for generating example requests, service_info for version details, and the solve_* trio (submit, status, result) covering the full lifecycle without overlap.
All names use lowercase underscores, and the core workflow tools consistently start with 'solve_'. The administrative tools (account_balance, example_payload, service_info) follow a noun_noun pattern, which is slightly different but still readable and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped: three tools for the core planning workflow, plus essential support tools for tokens, examples, and version info. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The solve lifecycle is fully covered (submit, status, result). The addition of example payload and account balance addresses common needs. Minor gaps like job cancellation or listing are absent but not critical for the main use case.