Check runtime details, MCP version, documentation timestamp, and connection health to verify the environment without altering the scene.
Runtime, MCP commit/version, documentation timestamp and connection health. Does not mutate the MD scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares that the operation does not mutate the MD scene, which is valuable side-effect transparency for an environment/diagnostic tool. It could add more context about network interaction or error behavior, but the non-mutation guarantee is clear.
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 short sentences with no filler. The most informative content is front-loaded, and the safety statement adds meaningful distinction without bloat.
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 parameterless read-only informational tool, the description is complete: it lists exactly what will be returned (runtime, version, timestamp, connection health) and clarifies that the scene is not mutated. No output schema exists, but the enumerated contents provide sufficient expectation of the response.
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 parametersks, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none 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 names a specific resource ('environment_info') and lists precise contents: runtime, MCP commit/version, documentation timestamp, and connection health. It is clear and not tautological, but lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from the similarly diagnostic sibling 'ping'.
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 phrase 'Does not mutate the MD scene' implies this is a safe, read-only diagnostic call, which is useful usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer it over alternatives such as 'ping' or 'scene_info', so the usage context is implied rather than fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.