Reads the info endpoint of a Spring Boot application to retrieve runtime metadata.
Read /actuator/info for an application.
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_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry full weight. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It is minimally transparent.
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, concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. Every word is necessary and earns its 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and many sibling tools, the description does not explain the return format, typical contents of /actuator/info, or how the application parameter is used. It is insufficient for complete understanding.
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 schema has a single parameter 'application' with no description and 0% coverage. The description does not explain what 'application' represents (e.g., name, ID, path), leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.
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 explicitly states the verb 'Read', the resource '/actuator/info', and the scope 'for an application'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which target different actuator endpoints (e.g., get_health_status, get_beans).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or any context-specific usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.