server_infoDiagnose server configuration and quota by checking version, auth key status, API usage and remaining budget, cache size, holiday data year, and knowledge base count.
서버 버전, 인증키 설정 여부(값은 노출하지 않음), 오늘 사용한 API 호출 수와 잔여 예산, 캐시 규모(법인 인덱스·원문 캐시), 공휴일 데이터 검증 연도, Q&A 지식베이스 건수를 돌려줍니다 (로컬 조회, 키·API 호출 불요).
"키를 넣었는데 인식이 안 된다", "한도가 얼마 남았냐", "공휴일 데이터가 몇 년도까지 있냐" 같은 질문의 진단 창구입니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden, and it does well: it discloses side-effect-free local lookup, explicitly says no API key or API invocation is needed, states that the key value is not exposed, and lists the returned metrics. This fully characterizes behavior for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.
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 sentences: the first front-loads the complete list of returned items and key behavioral facts, the second gives concrete trigger questions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it covers all return values, the local/no-auth nature, and examples of when to call it. There are no structured fields left to clarify, so nothing is 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?
The tool has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no authentication inputs are needed by stating '키·API 호출 불요' (no key/API call required), which adds relevant context beyond the empty schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('돌려줍니다' - returns) and identifies the resource as server status/config diagnostics, enumerating the exact data fields. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are domain-specific disclosure/financial tools.
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?
It gives explicit usage context and sample queries ('키를 넣었는데 인식이 안 된다', '한도가 얼마 남았냐', '공휴일 데이터가 몇 년도까지 있냐'), plus a constraint (local lookup, no key/API call required). It doesn't name alternatives or say when not to use it, but no sibling serves a diagnostic role, so the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.