Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mq-bridge

mq-bridge

by marcomq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Hybrid

server_info

Read-only

Report the server's build identity—version, git hash, profile, and build time—to verify the running binary before trusting throughput.

Instructions

Report this MCP server's build identity: crate version, git_hash (with a -dirty suffix if the working tree had uncommitted changes at build time), build profile (debug/release), and build_time. Use it to confirm which binary is actually running before trusting throughput numbers.

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": "server_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description provides deep behavioral context by detailing the exact elements reported: version, profile, build time, and crucially, the specific logic for the git_hash (including the '-dirty' suffix condition).

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 definition is highly concise, front-loading the main purpose and then efficiently detailing the specifics of the output in a clear, structured manner.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description is perfectly complete by explicitly listing every piece of data returned and defining the logic behind that data (e.g., the conditional nature of the git_hash).

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?

Since the tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, the description meets the baseline score for input parameter semantics.

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 uses a clear verb ('Report') and identifies a specific resource ('MCP server's build identity'). It is distinct from its siblings, which are primarily operational or routing tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('to confirm which binary is actually running before trusting throughput numbers'). While it doesn't compare it to a sibling, the defined use case is highly specific.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools