Retrieves authenticated Semaphore UI system information from the /info endpoint. Use it to inspect server version and configuration details before running automation tasks.
you must be authenticated to use this. GET /info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's one genuine addition is the authentication requirement, which is a real operational prerequisite not encoded in annotations, but it says nothing about the nature or scope of the returned data.
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 the prerequisite front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing — the single content sentence adds almost no information.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place an agent could learn what this call returns, and it does not say. Given multiple sibling info/introspection tools, an agent cannot predict the response payload or choose this over get_admin_info or get_server_options.
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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless GET, and there are no semantics left undocumented.
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 only restates the tool name as an HTTP endpoint ("GET /info"), without explaining what system information is returned. It does not distinguish this from near-siblings like get_admin_info, get_server_options, get_cluster_status, or ping.
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 only guidance is a prerequisite ("you must be authenticated"), which is not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to use this versus the many other get_* introspection tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.