Retrieves the running Steam Review and Forum MCP server's name and package version, so clients can verify process identity and build details.
Returns the name and package version of the running MCP server process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds that the return payload is a name and a package version, which is useful but thin. It says nothing about when the values are captured or any error behavior.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It communicates the complete contract for a no-argument tool.
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?
An output schema is present, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. For a trivial read-only diagnostic tool, the description is essentially sufficient; a brief note on when an agent should call it would be the only improvement.
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 zero parameters, so per the baseline there is no parameter semantics to explain. Descriing param behavior would be superfluous here.
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 ('Returns the name and package version of the running MCP server process') rather than restating the name. No sibling ambiguity exists — every other tool is Steam-content-oriented, so an agent can instantly route here for server metadata.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The diagnostic/health-check use case is only inferable from the tool's semantics, not stated. No exclusions or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.