get_policiesReturn the custom org policy set currently stored for your Pro key — the same rules analyze_sql enforces on top of the built-ins. Read-only; returns an empty list if none are set. Use set_policies to change them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only, returns empty list if none set, and ties the data to the Pro key. No contradictions present.
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 sentences, no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and behavior.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, read-only nature, empty list case, and relationship to sibling tools. No gaps.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool does and its context beyond the schema (e.g., Pro key, relationship to analyze_sql).
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 clearly states the tool returns the custom org policy set for a Pro key, and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'Read-only' and directing to set_policies for changes. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.
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 description provides explicit guidance: use to view policies, not to change them (use set_policies). It also clarifies the relationship with analyze_sql, giving context for when this tool is relevant.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyze SQL, get policies, and set policies. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: analyze_sql, get_policies, set_policies.
Three tools is appropriate for the domain of SQL safety and policy management, covering the essential operations without excess.
The tool surface provides full lifecycle for policies (get, set, clear via empty array) and comprehensive SQL analysis including cost estimation, with no obvious gaps.