swsd-mcp

swsd_get_server_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the SWSD MCP server's name, version, configured profile, enabled tools, base URL host, and documented rate limits locally without calling SWSD.

Instructions

Return the SWSD MCP server's name, version, configured profile, enabled tools, and the SWSD base URL host. Local-only — does not call SWSD. Includes documented SWSD upstream rate limits (the model can reference these without guessing).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`tools`	Yes
`profile`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`api_version`	Yes
`base_url_host`	Yes
`upstream_rate_limit`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.0.0Oct 4, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv2.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/idempotent, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds meaningful context: it is local-only and does not call SWSD, and it surfaces upstream rate limits. It stops short of detailing the return shape, though an output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the returned fields lead, followed by the local-only constraint and the rate-limit note. No filler.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema that documents return values, so the description need not explain them. The key behavioral fact (local-only, no SWSD call) is disclosed, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there are no parameters whose semantics require elaboration in the description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (the SWSD MCP server's name, version, profile, enabled tools, base URL host), so an agent knows exactly what it yields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling swsd_health_check, leaving that inference to the agent.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'Local-only — does not call SWSD' clause implies usage (when you need config/limits without hitting the API), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative versus swsd_health_check. Usage must be inferred.

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

Deploy Server