Campus Virtual MCP

get_server_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Consulta versión, zona horaria y el estado real de cada herramienta registrada.

Instructions

Consulta versión, zona horaria y el estado real de cada herramienta registrada.

No abre Lightpanda ni verifica la sesión del campus. Cada elemento de capabilities indica efecto (none, local, read, write), nivel de evidencia (local_tests, campus_partial, campus_verified), fecha de verificación real, alcance, límites pendientes, IDs relacionados del inventario y documentación. undocumented_tools lista herramientas registradas sin estado declarado.

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_server_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`browser`	No	lightpanda
`message`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`timezone`	Yes
`campus_url`	Yes
`capabilities`	Yes
`registered_tools`	Yes
`undocumented_tools`	Yes
`pending_features_doc`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it explains that the payload includes per-capability effect, evidence level, verification date, scope, pending limits and inventory IDs, plus an undocumented_tools list — telling the agent what it will learn and that some tools may lack declared state.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the negative scoping immediately after. The second paragraph is dense with field enumerations (effect values, evidence levels) that earn their place by defining the return contract, though it reads as a data-dictionary dump rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out — yet the description still explains the meaningful semantics of capabilities entries (effect, evidence level, verification date) that a raw schema likely cannot convey. For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly spends no words on parameter documentation and instead describes the return payload.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Consulta versión, zona horaria y el estado real de cada herramienta registrada' — an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also draws a boundary against network-touching siblings by stating it does not open Lightpanda nor verify the campus session. Distinguishing from siblings is done indirectly by negation rather than by naming them, so it stops short of a 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?

The negation ('No abre Lightpanda ni verifica la sesión del campus') implies the tool is safe to call for inspection without triggering session state, which nudges an agent toward it before login-dependent tools. However, there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'prefer this over X' routing statement, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server