Get MCP Server Version

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

The description states it returns the version, but the annotations already provide readOnlyHint (true), destructiveHint (false), and idempotentHint (true). The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations give; it is adequate but doesn't go further.

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, complete sentence. Every word is necessary and no information is repeated or wasted.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema needed), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. It is complete for its purpose.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'version of this mantisbt-mcp-server instance'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_mantis_version' by specifying the MCP server, not the MantisBT version.

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?

While there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, the tool has no parameters and a straightforward purpose. The context from sibling tools (e.g., get_mantis_version) implies differentiation, but the description could be more explicit about when to use this over other version tools.

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