Use this command to discover which board settings exist and their types/defaults (json-schema-like). Pass a key to inspect one setting; omit for all. Board-independent metadata — call this before set_board_setting to learn valid keys and types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Optional setting key to inspect. Omit for all available settings. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses read-only, board-independent metadata and a json-schema-like return of types/defaults, and places the tool in a workflow before set_board_setting. It does not explicitly state auth requirements, rate limits, or a no-side-effects guarantee, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'discover' and 'metadata'.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter usage, then behavioral/workflow context. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description explains the return as json-schema-like types/defaults, which is sufficient for this introspection tool. With high schema coverage for the single optional parameter and a clear read-only metadata role, the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's statement that a key inspects one setting and omission returns all settings merely repeats the input schema's existing key description; it adds no syntax, format, or validation meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 discovery task: 'discover which board settings exist and their types/defaults (json-schema-like)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from set_board_setting by positioning as a pre-write schema lookup, and its return of schema metadata separates it from sibling get_board_settings, which would return values. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly says to call this before set_board_setting to learn valid keys and types, and explains whether to pass a key or omit it. However, it does not name get_board_settings as the alternative for retrieving current values, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
