Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
n1mm-mcp

n1mm-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get Version Info

get_version_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the running n1mm-mcp service version and N1MM Logger+ UDP contract revision to compare deployments and detect version drift.

Instructions

Get n1mm-mcp service version and upstream UDP contract version.

Returns the running PyPI version of n1mm-mcp and the N1MM Logger+ UDP broadcast contract revision in use. Use this to confirm fleet alignment across MCP deployments — agents can compare service_version and spec_version across servers to detect drift without going outside the MCP protocol.

Note: n1mm_diagnostics remains the canonical health probe (heartbeat, parse errors, memory). get_version_info is a lighter-weight identity attestation that succeeds even when N1MM isn't broadcasting.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_version_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait beyond them: it is a 'lighter-weight identity attestation that succeeds even when N1MM isn't broadcasting,' which tells the agent this call is reliable in a degraded upstream state. It does not describe cost/latency or caching, so it stops short of 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then usage, then the sibling disambiguation — a sensible order with no wasted preamble. Slightly padded by 'without going outside the MCP protocol' and a parenthetical listing diagnostics' internals, which is context for a different tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-argument read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the two returned version fields, the intended cross-server comparison workflow, and the degraded-upstream behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 per the rubric. The description additionally names the two values the caller will compare (service_version, spec_version), reinforcing what the empty-arg call is for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (service version + upstream UDP contract version), and names the concrete return fields service_version and spec_version. It explicitly separates itself from n1mm_diagnostics, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit use case (confirm fleet alignment, compare versions across servers to detect drift) and an explicit exclusions clause: 'n1mm_diagnostics remains the canonical health probe (heartbeat, parse errors, memory).' The when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated with the alternative named.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools