Mercury Multiorg MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

server_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the current build status, including package version, API base, entity count, and whether document tools are enabled. No secrets exposed.

Instructions

Report the running build: package version, API base, entity count, whether document tools are enabled. No secrets.

    Use this to check the build and `documents_enabled`; use
    `list_entities` for entity keys. No Mercury request.

Tool call template

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": "server_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context that it returns specific build details and excludes secrets, which is useful and goes beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the added detail about no Mercury request clarifies internal behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is succinct, front-loads the key information about the build, and uses only two sentences. Every phrase earns its place, including the explicit pointer to list_entities and the note about no Mercury request.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (zero params) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, key outputs, exclusions (secrets), and how to get related data (entity keys). Nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. The description still provides value by explaining what the output will contain, which is more than a bare schema would offer. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and this is met.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reports the running build with specifics: package version, API base, entity count, and documents_enabled flag. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning list_entities for entity keys and emphasizing no Mercury request.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use: to check build and documents_enabled, and directs to list_entities for entity keys. It also states what it does NOT do, such as making a Mercury request, which helps avoid misuse.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.