Retrieves the API v3 file version for a game-scoped file ID and returns its global file version ID, enabling lookup of version details across Nexus Mods.
Get an API v3 file version by the game-scoped file ID. Response contains the global file version ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Nexus game domain, e.g. skyrimspecialedition. | |
| fileId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful note that the response contains a global file version ID, which is a behavioral/response detail not in annotations. It doesn't cover error cases or auth requirements, but with annotations present the bar is lower.
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?
Two short sentences with no waste, front-loading the action and then the distinguishing detail about the response. Every sentence 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?
No output schema exists, so the description's mention of the global file version ID in the response is helpful. However, it's a simple read tool with annotations that cover the safety profile, and the missing fileId parameter detail leaves a minor gap. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%. The 'game' parameter is well documented in the schema (game domain example), but fileId has no schema description. The tool description mentions 'game-scoped file ID' which hints at the relationship between the two parameters, adding some value, but doesn't fully compensate for the missing fileId documentation. Baseline 3 aligns with the mixed coverage.
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 ('Get an API v3 file version'), and clarifies it is keyed by the game-scoped file ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexus_v3_files. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the operation is clear.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nexus_v3_files or nexus_mod_files. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.