Shows server version, game data import date, coverage, and limits to verify build calculation data freshness and scope.
Show the server version, when the game data was imported, what it covers and its limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world access, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds something annotations cannot: that the response reports data provenance and known limitations, which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of describing format or freshness guarantees.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with every clause adding a distinct returned field. Nothing is redundant or wasted.
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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it lists all four categories of information. It could go slightly further on how 'limits' or 'coverage' are expressed, but the essential picture is complete.
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 there is no parameter semantics burden; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless, unconditional call.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates exactly what metadata is returned: server version, import timestamp, coverage, and limits. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which all list or search game entities, though it never explicitly says so.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a health/dataset-metadata check to run before trusting list/search results. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or which sibling it complements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.