Meilisearch MCP Server

info

Retrieve Meilisearch server system information to monitor performance, check status, and verify configuration for search operations.

Instructions

Get the system information of the Meilisearch server

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Implementation Reference

src/tools/system-tools.ts:58-67 (handler)
The handler function for the 'info' tool. It makes a GET request to the root endpoint ('/') of the Meilisearch server using apiClient, stringifies the response data as JSON, and returns it in the MCP content format. Errors are handled via createErrorResponse.
```
async () => {
  try {
    const response = await apiClient.get('/');
    return {
      content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2) }],
    };
  } catch (error) {
    return createErrorResponse(error);
  }
}
```

src/tools/system-tools.ts:54-68 (registration)

Registration of the 'info' tool on the MCP server within the registerSystemTools function. It specifies the tool name, description, empty input schema ({}), and the handler function.

server.tool(
  'info',
  'Get the system information of the Meilisearch server',
  {},
  async () => {
    try {
      const response = await apiClient.get('/');
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2) }],
      };
    } catch (error) {
      return createErrorResponse(error);
    }
  }
);

src/index.ts:69-69 (registration)
Invocation of registerSystemTools on the main MCP server instance, which registers the 'info' tool among other system tools.
```
registerSystemTools(server);
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedDec 10, 2025

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what the response format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on what 'system information' includes (e.g., server version, uptime, configuration) and how it differs from sibling tools, which could help the agent use it more effectively in context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters, though it doesn't add extra value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('system information of the Meilisearch server'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'health', 'stats', or 'version', which might provide overlapping or related system information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'health' (checks server availability), 'stats' (provides database statistics), or 'version' (gets software version). Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent must infer based on tool names alone.

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

Deploy Server