MCP Server for SketchUp

get_version

Verify SketchUp MCP runtime compatibility by returning server version and Python↔Ruby verdict, even when other tools surface errors.

Instructions

Return the server version and Python↔Ruby compatibility verdict.

Useful as a runtime sanity probe — always returns a payload, even when the connection or other tools surface errors. The result is a JSON string with fields: python_version, ruby_version, min_compatible_ruby, max_compatible_ruby, ruby_min_compatible_python, ruby_max_compatible_python, compatible (bool), error (string | null).

Tool call template

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool always returns a payload, even during connection or other errors, and describes the result structure (JSON string with specific fields). This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond basic purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus a field listing, with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains when to use, what it returns, and its reliability. It adds details about the compatibility fields beyond the bare schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. It correctly focuses on return value and usage context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns server version and compatibility verdict, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by describing its unique role as a runtime sanity probe.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly recommends using it as a runtime sanity probe and notes it always returns a payload even when other tools error. While it doesn't list alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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