read_mcp_server_version

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it returns the version 'that's running', clarifying it's for the active server instance rather than a static or latest version. This contextual detail enhances understanding beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits or auth needs.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Returns the version') with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation), the description is complete enough. It clearly states the purpose, and with annotations covering safety and an output schema presumably detailing the return value, no additional explanation of behavior or outputs is necessary. It adequately covers all needed context.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is given as it compensates well for the trivial parameter scenario.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Returns') and resource ('version of the QC MCP Server that's running'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_latest_mcp_server_version' which likely fetches a different version reference. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage for checking the current server version, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'read_latest_mcp_server_version' for a different version type) or provide any exclusions. It offers basic context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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