server_infoRetrieves metadata about the MCP server, workspace, project context, authentication, policies, and fixed tools. Use to inspect environment configuration and available tooling.
Return server, workspace, project-context, auth, policy, and fixed-tool metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful content detail (the metadata categories) but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as output size, permission requirements, or latency. This is acceptable for a zero-parameter info tool but does not go beyond the annotation baseline significantly.
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, directly stated sentence with no filler. The main verb and object are front-loaded, and the category list is compact and useful.
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 zero-parameter read-only metadata tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what categories of information are available capital and the annotations cover safety, so nothing essential 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?
There are zero parameters SB, so parameter semantics are largely moot; the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating what the returned metadata covers, which helps the agent understand the semantic scope even though no parameters exist.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource (server metadata) and enumerates the exact categories included. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on files, commands, git, or permissions.
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 use case is implied: an agent would call this when it needs server/workspace/auth/policy context. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as check_exec_environment or when not to use it. The 'when to use' context is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.