Get MCP server version

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explicitly disclosing that it does not call GitHub, spawn a subprocess, request approval, or modify state. This gives the agent strong safety guarantees for a local read-only operation.

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 two compact sentences: the first states exactly what the tool returns, the second states what it avoids doing. Every clause earns its place and nothing is 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?

For a zero-parameter local diagnostic tool with a useful output schema and strong annotations, this description is complete. It fully conveys purpose, scope, and non-behavior with no ambiguity.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details for the description to expand on. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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, 'return,' and identifies the resource as 'this MCP server,' then lists the exact data fields returned: deployed version, tool-schema version, transport, tool count, and write-policy status. It also explicitly labels the tool as a 'local diagnostic' that does not call GitHub, distinguishing it from the GitHub-focused gh_* 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?

The description gives clear context: this is a local server diagnostic, not a GitHub API operation. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool or provide when-not-to-use phrasing, but the statement 'This tool does not call GitHub' strongly implies when this tool is inappropriate.

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