server_infoIdentity, version, and request limits for this MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| limits | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| keys_url | Yes | ||
| verdict_key | Yes | Public Ed25519 JWK this deployment signs verdicts with; also at keys_url. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / limits / properties / max_trace_recordsAdded value: +{
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / properties / limits / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "max_body_bytes",
- "max_chain_entries"
-]New value: +[
+ "max_body_bytes",
+ "max_chain_entries",
+ "max_trace_records"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must establish behavioral safety. It names the informational content and has zero parameters, strongly implying a read-only metadata call, but it never explicitly states that it has no side effects or how it behaves on failure.
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 one short sentence with no filler, and the most identifying content ('Identity, version, and request limits') is front-loaded. Every word adds signal.
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 zero-parameter, output-schema-backed metadata endpoint, the description covers the essential returned categories (identity, version, limits) and needs no further operational detail. It is complete enough for safe selection, though it could slightly expand on what 'identity' means.
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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. A baseline of 4 is appropriate; no additional parameter meaning is needed.
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 specifies exactly what the tool exposes ('Identity, version, and request limits') and scopes it to 'this MCP server', clearly separating it from the sibling receipt/trace/verification tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the noun-phrase description is specific and not a tautology of the name.
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?
No explicit when/when-not guidance is given, but no sibling offers server-level identity and request limits, so the intended use is clear from context. The phrase 'for this MCP server' is sufficient for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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.