argocd_get_versionFetch the Argo CD server version and bundled tool versions to confirm API connectivity and check compatibility before running GitOps operations.
Get the Argo CD server version and its bundled tool versions. The connectivity probe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The 'connectivity probe' framing adds modest context beyond that, but nothing is said about auth requirements or what the version payload looks like.
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, value front-loaded with the return content first and the probe framing second. Every phrase earns its place with no padding.
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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description says what it returns (server version plus bundled tool versions) and when it is useful. It is nearly self-sufficient; only the response shape remains unspecified, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. No parameter detail is expected or needed here.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the Argo CD server version') plus the payload ('its bundled tool versions'). No sibling in the list retrieves version information, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from get_settings, get_userinfo, and the rest.
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 connectivity probe.' gives a clear situational context for calling it — as a lightweight liveness/connectivity check. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling overlaps, so there is little to route away from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.