get_server_infoCheck server configuration: API base URL, API key presence, and accepted ticket states, types, and priorities for managing support tickets.
Show how this server is configured: the API base URL it talks to, whether an API key is present, and the ticket states, types and priorities the API accepts. The API key itself is never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: the exact fields returned and, importantly, that the API key itself is never returned. That security-relevant disclosure is beyond what the annotations or empty schema convey.
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?
Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler, front-loaded on the core action with the return payload enumerated immediately after. Every clause earns its place.
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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by naming the exact fields. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only introspection tool; only the response shape/format is left unstated, which is minor here.
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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. A 4 is appropriate with no parameter meaning to add.
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 verb and resource ('Show how this server is configured') and then enumerates exactly what is surfaced: API base URL, key presence, and accepted ticket states/types/priorities. It is unmistakably distinct from the ticket- and project-oriented siblings.
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 rather than stated – an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/introspection call with no alternatives, but the description never says when to reach for it (e.g., before configuring or troubleshooting). No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.