Runn MCP server info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns version and config, does not reveal the token, and does not call the API. This is exemplary transparency for a tool with no side effects.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a critical safety clarification. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has no input schema parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: what is returned, what is not returned, and that no external call is made. This fully satisfies the agent's need to use the tool 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 tool has zero parameters, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; it focuses on return value instead.

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 returns server version and effective configuration, listing specific fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does NOT call the Runn API, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool (whenever server info is needed) and provides a clear 'when-not' by stating it does not call the API. However, it lacks an explicit 'use this when...' statement or reference to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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