Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lens-mcp

lens-mcp

by segentic-lab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

info

Get server metadata including version, supported languages, doc extensions, and tool list. Use this to verify server capabilities when paths are rejected.

Instructions

Server self-description: version, working directory (the path sandbox root — every path you pass must resolve inside it), supported code languages and doc extensions, the tool list, and every output cap. Returns JSON {name, version, workingDirectory, code:{languages}, docs:{extensions}, tools[], limits, contract}. Read-only, no parameters. Call this first if a path is rejected or to learn what the server can see.

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": "info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: declares read-only nature, no parameters, and describes the return JSON structure in detail, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses compact but complete sentences. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return format completely. It covers all necessary aspects for a self-description tool, making the agent well-informed.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description correctly adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which is adequate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool provides server self-description including version, working directory, supported languages, doc extensions, tool list, and output caps. It distinguishes from sibling tools (comments, find, etc.) by being a meta-tool about the server itself.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly advises 'Call this first if a path is rejected or to learn what the server can see,' providing clear usage context. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the meta-tool nature makes this less critical.

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