get_version_infoIdentify the current version and edition of the IARU's ITU zones list. Verify the data currency before using the service to check zone coverage and prefixes.
Get itu-zones-mcp's version and the edition of the IARU's list it serves.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the useful content detail that the edition of the IARU list is part of the payload, but nothing further about freshness, caching, or provenance. Modest value on top of rich annotations.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary return value and with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 the description need not enumerate return fields; it just frames the two headline values, which it does. For a trivial, no-argument metadata tool this is essentially sufficient, with only the sibling overlap unresolved.
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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a parameter-free 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 and resource ('Get itu-zones-mcp's version') and names a second return value ('the edition of the IARU's list it serves'), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly purposed sibling itu_zones_source_info, which is the one remaining ambiguity.
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 diagnostic/metadata call, but the description never states when to use it versus itu_zones_source_info or the lookup siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.