Get Version Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substantive context that the result pairs a local PyPI version with an upstream endpoint contract version and is intended for cross-server drift comparison, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core 'what' before the fleet-alignment rationale. The phrase 'fleet alignment' is slightly jargon-y but still earns its place by explaining intent.

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?

No parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema that documents return values mean the description only needs to supply purpose and intent — which it does. Nothing required to call this correctly is 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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free by describing only returned version fields.

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 ('Get') and two specific resources (eqsl-mcp service version and upstream eQSL.cc endpoint contract version). No sibling tool in the eQSL family does anything comparable, so an agent can distinguish it immediately without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to confirm fleet alignment across MCP deployments' and describes comparing service_version and spec_version to detect drift. Context is clear; no exclusions are given, but none are needed since there is no overlapping sibling for version data.

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