get_version_infoRetrieve the CQ zones MCP server's version and the edition of CQ's list it serves, so you can verify software and data compatibility.
Get cq-zones-mcp's version and the edition of CQ's list it serves.
Returns: service_name, service_version (PyPI), and spec_version (the owner's edition).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and that service_version comes from PyPI, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about auth requirements, caching, or whether the call has side effects (it is implicitly read-only).
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The 'Returns:' block partially duplicates the output schema, but it is brief enough to be harmless.
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?
An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not strictly required; the description nonetheless names the key fields. For a zero-param metadata tool this is essentially complete, with only usage context 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 baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and focuses entirely on what is returned.
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+resource (get version info) and clarifies it covers both the service version and the served CQ list edition. It is naturally distinguishable from the lookup/search siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 metadata/diagnostic call, but the description never states when to reach for it (e.g., before other calls, to verify spec compatibility) or whether any alternative exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.