inception_get_system_infoRetrieve the Inception controller's name, serial number, REST API protocol version, and firmware support status to verify connectivity and compatibility.
Returns the Inception controller's name, serial number and REST API protocol version, and whether the firmware is supported (7.3.0.8528 or later, protocol version 18). Use it to confirm connectivity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: it enumerates the returned fields and defines the firmware support threshold (7.3.0.8528+, protocol 18), which tells the agent how to interpret the result.
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?
One compact sentence states the return payload and the support criterion, followed by a short usage clause. Front-loaded with the tool's output, no filler.
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 parameters, complete annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing what is returned and the version threshold. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.
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?
There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing further is required of the description on this dimension.
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?
States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (Inception controller's name, serial number, API protocol version, firmware support status). Clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_* tools, which enumerate items/events rather than reporting controller identity.
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?
"Use it to confirm connectivity" gives a clear context for invoking it. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it, but for a zero-arg diagnostic read that exclusion set is small.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.