ras_farm_get_versionRetrieves the current RAS REST API version and build number so you can verify compatibility or check which features are available.
RAS web service (REST API) version information. Returns the current API version and build number. Use this to verify the API version is compatible or check which features are available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the substantive behavioral fact that the call returns version plus build number, which is what the agent actually needs to reason about the result. It says nothing about caching, rate limits or auth, but none of those are material for a trivial read-only metadata call.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then what it returns, then why to use it. Slight redundancy between the opening noun phrase and the 'Returns...' sentence, but no filler or padding.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does ('current API version and build number'). For a tool this simple that is sufficient; only the exact field names/shape of the response remain unspecified, which is a minor gap.
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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing or implying any inputs.
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 verb and resource ('Returns the current API version and build number') and repeats the tool's scope in plain language, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from any sibling, though no sibling tool covers API version/data-version metadata, so the risk of confusion is low.
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?
It gives a clear use case: 'verify the API version is compatible or check which features are available.' That is real when-to-use guidance rather than implied usage. It does not state when not to use it or name any alternative, but for a zero-parameter version endpoint there is no plausible alternative to route to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.