Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
netlogger-mcp

netlogger-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get Version Info

get_version_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the server version, supported NetLogger API version, and returned record version so you can verify compatibility before querying net data.

Instructions

Get netlogger-mcp's version, the NetLogger API version it is built for, and the version of the records it returns.

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 observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it reports three distinct version axes, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about cost, caching, or environment variability beyond that.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause identifies a distinct returned value. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameter set is empty, so the description need not explain return structure further. For a simple, read-only, zero-arg metadata tool it is complete enough to call correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 (version info) and enumerates exactly what is returned: the MCP server version, the NetLogger API version it targets, and the record schema version. No sibling tool overlaps with this purpose, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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/compatibility check, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before parsing records, when schema mismatches occur) or names any alternative. Adequate for a trivial zero-param tool, but no explicit guidance is offered.

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