qso-graph-contest-mcp

by qso-graph

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Get Version Info

get_version_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the server's version and development status to verify compatibility and track current development progress.

Instructions

Get this server's version and development status.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the genuine extra detail that the response includes 'development status', not just a version string, but says nothing about cost, caching, or whether the value can change between calls.

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 eleven-word sentence that front-loads the resource and adds the one non-obvious fact (development status) at the end. There is no filler, hedging, or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

This is a zero-parameter, read-only query with an output schema, so the description needn't document return values and its brevity is appropriate. The only minor gap is that it does not say what 'development status' means in practice (e.g., dev vs. release build, git revision).

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 meaning for the description to carry and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing about argument semantics is missing.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('this server's version and development status'), so an agent knows exactly what the call returns. No sibling tools exist to differentiate from, so the absence of comparative language costs nothing, though it stops short of a fully specified 5.

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/health-check call with no parameters and no alternatives. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., before reporting a bug, when checking whether behavior is dev-mode) or when not to bother.

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

get_version_infoA