Learn server version, configured sinks, and read sink to confirm setup before querying filings.
Use this first to learn the server version, configured sinks, and read sink.
Returns server metadata only; it reads no filings. This tool is read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by clarifying it 'reads no filings' and returns 'server metadata only.' This reinforces and extends the annotation context without contradicting it.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The core directive is front-loaded, and the supporting scope statement is immediately relevant.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing is missing.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema already covers everything (100% coverage with an empty properties object). Baseline 4 for 0-parameter tools is appropriate; the description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed.
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 names a specific verb ('learn') and resource ('server version, configured sinks, and read sink'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it 'reads no filings,' so it won't be confused with filing-related tools.
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?
The directive 'Use this first' provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, positioning it as an initial discovery step. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.