Retrieve the Pixera Native API revision to identify whether the connected server runs a release or beta build; even revisions are releases and odd revisions are betas.
Return the Pixera Native API revision (even=release, odd=beta).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key behavioral detail that the returned revision is encoded by parity: even means release and odd means beta. It does not mention error behavior or side effects, but for a zero-parameter getter this is reasonably transparent.
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 with no wasted wording. The most important information, the return value and its parity convention, is immediate.
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?
The tool is a simple zero-parameter getter, and an output schema exists. The description adds the one non-schema detail an agent needs: how to interpret even versus odd revision numbers. Nothing essential 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the Pixera Native API revision.' The parity explanation further clarifies what the returned value means, making it distinguishable from generic siblings like pixera_describe or pixera_get_param.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool's purpose as a revision/version lookup, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings such as pixera_describe, pixera_ping, or pixera_has_function. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.