Fetches the Traefik API version to verify compatibility with the running Traefik instance.
Get the Traefik API version
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": "get_version"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does only minimally: 'Get' implies a read-only, side-effect-free call. It does not say what is returned (a version string? a JSON object?), whether authentication is required, or how failures surface. For a zero-parameter getter the burden is low, so this is adequate but thin.
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?
Six words, fully front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restatement. Every word earns its place for a tool this simple.
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 a trivial, parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched. The one gap is that, absent an output schema, it could have indicated the return shape (a version string vs. structured version metadata), which an agent would otherwise have to discover at call time.
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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter schema applies. The description correctly implies no input 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource (the Traefik API version), which is distinguishable from the siblings' entrypoint/middleware/router/service resources by name alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether the API must be enabled or reachable), and no reference to any alternative. The only usage signal is the implicit 'get' prefix shared with every sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.