get_server_infoBuild identity of the running iching.rocks MCP server: name, semantic version, git revision, protocol, and canonical MCP endpoint. Identity only — returns no hexagram data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| protocol | No | ||
| git_revision | No | ||
| mcp_endpoint | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds 'Identity only — returns no hexagram data,' which is more about scope than behavior. It provides some context but no additional behavioral traits like side effects or requirements.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and field list. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
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, zero-parameter tool with an output schema and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete. It states what fields are returned and explicitly excludes hexagram data, covering all necessary context.
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, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
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's function: building identity of the MCP server, including specific fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it returns no hexagram data.
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 implies when to use it (when server identity is needed) and provides an exclusion (no hexagram data), but it does not explicitly name alternatives. Sibling tools are all hexagram-related, making the differentiation clear.
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 serves a distinct purpose: single vs batch vs bulk retrieval, reading context, trigrams, sequences, search, and server info. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, list_, search_), making the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
10 tools is well-scoped for a domain-specific reference server. Each tool covers a necessary operation without bloat or deficiency.
The tool surface covers retrieval, listing, search, reading context, trigrams, and sequences. Minor gaps like a random hexagram tool are non-essential for a deterministic reference dataset.