Retrieves Redis server statistics and configuration, optionally filtered by a specific section for targeted diagnostics.
Run Redis INFO, optionally scoped to a section.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "redis_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool runs INFO (informational), but does not disclose safety (read-only hint), potential size of output, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value with no redundancy. It earns a high score for efficiency.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a block of text) and any implications of omitting the section. It is too minimal to be fully useful.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the parameter 'section' has no type details or enum values. The description adds that it is optional but fails to list valid section names (e.g., 'server', 'clients'), which are standard for Redis INFO. More concrete examples are 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 clearly states the tool executes the Redis INFO command, with optional section scoping. The verb 'run' and resource 'Redis INFO' are specific, and the name directly conveys the purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like redis_command and redis_get.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redis_command or redis_get. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.