Get API version control information.
Get API version control information.
Args: settings: Application settings
Returns: Version control information including current, latest, and deprecated versions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| controller | No | Controller to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / properties / controllerAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Controller to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default."
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates return contents (which the output schema already covers) and says nothing about auth, rate limits, or side effects. "Get" weakly implies a read, but no explicit safety or scope context is given.
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 text is short and front-loaded, but the Args block documents a nonexistent parameter and the Returns block duplicates what the output schema already provides, so parts of it do not earn their 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?
For a simple optional-param read tool with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description is close to adequate. However, the incorrect "settings" arg documentation leaves an agent with a misleading mental model of the interface, and no usage context is provided.
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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description documents an arg named "settings: Application settings" that does not exist in the schema (the actual parameter is "controller"). This actively misleads about the parameter rather than clarifying it.
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 ("Get API version control information") and names the returned versions (current, latest, deprecated), which makes the purpose unambiguous. No sibling appears to compete for this function, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the controller/integration families.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or which alternatives exist. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.