Get the project's published relay configuration — the exact JSON the EchoRelay Framework consumes. Includes pendingPublish with its frozen, redacted config when one is scheduled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds that the result includes 'pendingPublish with its frozen, redacted config when one is scheduled,' which is a behavioral nuance about coverage and redaction. It also clarifies the config is 'published,' indicating it is the live runtime config.
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 filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds important inclusion detail. Well-structured.
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?
The description conveys the return value's nature (exact JSON, includes pendingPublish when scheduled) and safety profile via annotations. It lacks explicit mention of behavior when no configuration exists or when pendingPublish is not scheduled, but for a parameterless getter this is sufficient.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not mention parameters, which is consistent.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'the project's published relay configuration' and adds distinguishing detail: 'the exact JSON the EchoRelay Framework consumes' and 'Includes pendingPublish...' which differentiates it from sibling config tools like config_diff and list_config_revisions.
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 implies usage via 'exact JSON consumed' but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of config_diff or list_config_revisions. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer from the specific wording.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
