Reports the running server's version, install path, active vault, and process uptime so you can verify you are connected to the intended build.
Version of this server, where it is running from, which vault it is using, and how long this process has been alive. Use it to confirm you are talking to the build you think you are.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the four pieces of state returned, which is the key behavioral fact for a diagnostic call, but it never states that the tool is read-only, side-effect free, or whether any auth is required — omissions that matter when nothing else signals safety.
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 sentences, zero filler. The informational payload is front-loaded and the usage instruction follows it, so an agent gets both the 'what' and the 'why' immediately.
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, the description must stand in for the return value, and it names all four fields the caller will receive. Combined with the empty input schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly. Only the read-only/side-effect assurance is missing.
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 rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the fact that it is argument-free, which is consistent with the empty schema.
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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns — server version, run location, vault in use, uptime — which is far more specific than the name 'sketchdex_info' alone and clearly separates it from the scene-manipulation siblings. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'reports'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it to confirm you are talking to the build you think you are.' That is a clear context for invoking it. It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative, but no sibling tool competes for this diagnostic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.