Retrieves the exact framework version this server's source maps to, including NuGet version, git commit, and date. Use it to confirm which bot framework release you are inspecting.
Which framework version this server's source corresponds to (NuGet version, git commit, date).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three data points returned (NuGet version, git commit, date), which is meaningful context, but never explicitly states the operation is read-only and side-effect free, nor whether the value is static or reflects live server state.
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 sentence that front-loads the answer ('Which framework version') and then parenthetically enumerates the returned fields. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.
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 zero params and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it. The only residual ambiguity is whether 'framework' means the MCP server framework or the codebase under analysis, which a short clarifying phrase would resolve.
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 is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately does not clutter itself with argument discussion.
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 resource and the exact information returned (NuGet version, git commit, date) for the server's own source. No sibling tool does anything similar, so it is naturally distinguishable, though the phrasing is noun-phrase rather than a verb, making it slightly indirect for an agent scanning tool names.
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 content ('which framework version this server's source corresponds to') — an agent would call it for provenance/debugging. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion needed since no sibling overlaps, so this is minimum viable rather than strong guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.