software_versionsRetrieve installed versions for up to 50 specified software names without launching or modifying them.
Look up installed versions for up to 50 requested software names without launching or modifying the software.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matches | Yes | ||
| requested | Yes | ||
| packageManager | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints by stating it will not launch or modify the software, which clarifies that version detection is passive rather than execution-based.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action, scope, and non-invasive behavior are all delivered immediately.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, for correct invocation, the description should clarify how software names are matched and how this differs from installed_software, both of which are 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'names'. The description only restates that these are software names and repeats the 50-item limit already present in the schema; it does not explain matching rules, expected name format, case sensitivity, or how partial or unknown names are handled.
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 states a specific verb ('look up'), resource ('installed versions'), and scope ('up to 50 requested software names'). It implies a focused query rather than a full inventory, but does not explicitly name the sibling tool installed_software, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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 description gives clear context for using the tool with a bounded list of requested software names, but it does not say when to choose this over installed_software or software_changes. Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed with when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.