ai-agent-channel

server_build

Read-only

Get the running server's build facts: version, implemented feature requests, and deliberately excluded items, so after an upgrade you know what changed without reading code.

Instructions

What this RUNNING server is: its version, what changed and what to do differently, and the ids of the feature requests this build implements, with dates. Ask it instead of reading a source tree — a checkout tells you what some code says, not what the process answering your calls does. Also lists what is deliberately NOT implemented and why, so 'missing' and 'refused' stop looking the same. Call it after an upgrade instead of discovering the change by breaking against it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool reflects the live running process, not static code, and that it surfaces deliberate omissions. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, with no contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly elaborate but each clause contributes meaning and no information is wasted.

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?

For a no-parameter read-only introspection tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool is, why to use it, and when to call it. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter explanation is needed.

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 identifies what the tool does: reports the running server's version, changes, implementation details, and deliberate non-implementations. It distinguishes itself from source-tree inspection and implies a unique role among sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells the agent to ask this tool instead of reading a source tree and to call it after an upgrade rather than discovering changes by breaking against them. This is direct when-to-use guidance.

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