get_server_infoReturn capabilities, version, languages, and default coordinates for a BMLT root server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root_server_url | No | Override the configured BMLT root server URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what information is returned (capabilities, version, languages, coordinates), which goes beyond the annotation stubs. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, strategically worded sentence that directly states the tool's output without waste. It front-loads the action and enumerates the key data categories, earning every word.
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 one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context. It specifies the return data categories, and there is no output schema requiring elaboration. The agent has enough to select and invoke correctly.
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 input schema fully describes the only parameter, root_server_url, with its 'Override...' purpose. The tool description merely mentions 'for a BMLT root server' but does not add syntax or default behavior details; given 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool's action ('Return') and specific data ('capabilities, version, languages, and default coordinates') for a BMLT root server. This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools that list formats, meetings, service bodies, or search meetings.
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 makes it clear when to use this tool: when you need root server metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'for a BMLT root server' implies the appropriate use case, and no misleading guidance is present.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single meeting, server info, formats, root servers, service bodies, and searching meetings. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_meeting, list_root_servers, search_meetings), making it easy for agents to predict and select tools.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a meeting directory server, covering essential operations without being overly sparse or bloated.
The tools cover the full lifecycle for a read-only meeting directory: listing metadata (servers, service bodies, formats), searching meetings with filters, and fetching details. No obvious gaps.