get_connectionMinimal connection block for the preferred remote (or package) with ${SECRET} placeholders, formatted for a target client. Secrets are never accepted or returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Official reverse-DNS name | |
| target | No | Output format (default mcpServers) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / target / enumPrevious value: -[
- "mcpServers",
- "vscode",
- "cursor",
- "claude-code-cli",
- "codex-toml",
- "gemini",
- "goose"
-]New value: +[
+ "mcpServers",
+ "vscode",
+ "cursor",
+ "claude-code-cli",
+ "codex-toml",
+ "opencode",
+ "gemini",
+ "goose"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context by stating that secrets are never accepted or returned, which is a behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations and important for trust.
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 with no filler. The main purpose and key characteristics are front-loaded, and the critical secret-handling guarantee is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description explains the return as a minimal connection block with placeholders and specifies that secrets are never returned. It does not detail the exact structure of the block, but for a simple read-only tool this is sufficient for correct invocation and basic expectation setting.
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 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already explains name as a reverse-DNS name and target as output format. The description reinforces that name refers to a remote/package and target to a client, but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 retrieves a minimal connection block for the preferred remote or package, formatted for a target client. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'connection block' differentiates it from siblings like get_server. It would be a 5 if it explicitly named the sibling it replaces or contrasts.
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 when to use it: when a connection block with secret placeholders is needed for a target client. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the routing is left somewhat to inference.
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.