get_versionReports the MCP server name and version, Tandoor Recipes version, and startup-detected compatibility status from cached state without a network call.
Report this MCP server's name/version and the Tandoor server version + compatibility status detected at startup (ok | unsupported | unknown). No arguments; answers from cached startup state without a network call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that results come from startup-cached state rather than a live call, and enumerates the compatibility values (ok | unsupported | unknown). It stops short of warning that cached state may be stale after a server change.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence carrying purpose, return contents, the status enum, and the no-network behavior. Nothing is redundant with the name or annotations.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, and it does: server name/version, Tandoor version, and a three-valued compatibility status. For a zero-argument read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'No arguments', which matches the empty schema exactly and removes any doubt an agent might have about needing a server identifier.
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?
States a specific verb (Report) and precisely names the three things returned: the MCP server's name/version, the Tandoor server version, and the compatibility status. No sibling tool in the list does anything similar, so an agent can select it unambiguously.
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 the use case clear (diagnostic/version lookup) and notes that it takes no arguments and causes no network call, which implies it is the cheap first step. It does not explicitly state when *not* to use it or name an alternative, but no sibling overlaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.