Ephemeris Time-Series Forecasting

Inspect the hosted Ephemeris version

get_version

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read this deployed MCP server's version, nullable build commit and supported saved forecast schema versions. Call with {}. No API key, account access, inference, charges or writes; network access to this server only. Returns component, version, build_commit (full source SHA or null when unavailable), artifact_schema_versions, and runtime_tls (Node release and certificate-trust status; metadata only, no probe connections). Unknown commit stays null. Server, CLI, npm bridge and artifact schema versions are independent; this tool cannot inspect local installations, check the latest registry release or establish model quality. Use list_models for live model capabilities. After a connection failure reconnect and retry; no forecast could have been submitted by this tool.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`version`	Yes
`component`	Yes
`runtime_tls`	Yes
`build_commit`	Yes
`artifact_schema_versions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / runtime_tls

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "certificate_verification": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "distrusted_roots": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "effective_store_inspected": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "node_version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "patched_node": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "safe": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "trust_store_replaced": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "node_version",
+    "patched_node",
+    "trust_store_replaced",
+    "effective_store_inspected",
+    "distrusted_roots",
+    "certificate_verification",
+    "safe"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "component",
-  "version",
-  "build_commit",
-  "artifact_schema_versions"
-]New value: +[
+  "component",
+  "version",
+  "build_commit",
+  "runtime_tls",
+  "artifact_schema_versions"
+]

AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, but the description adds substantial context: no inference, charges, writes, or account access; network access only to this server; runtime_tls is metadata only with no probe connections; unknown commits stay null; and no forecast could have been submitted. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds operational caveats. It is information-dense and mostly earns its sentences, though it is somewhat long and could be tightened because several clarifications overlap with annotation and output-schema information.

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 has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, yet the description still provides enough context about return fields, null behavior, independence of version types, and failure handling. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret its scope.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by saying to call with {}, which is useful but not necessary beyond the 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 read operation: this deployed MCP server's version, build commit, and supported saved forecast schema versions. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling concerns by saying it cannot inspect local installations, check registry releases, or establish model quality, and it routes live model capability checks to list_models.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to call with {}, notes that no API key or account access is needed, and gives an alternative for live model capabilities via list_models. It also provides a recovery instruction after connection failures, so the agent knows both when to use it and what not to expect from it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Ephemeris Time-Series Forecasting tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.