get_environment_variablesGet resolved variables for a specific environment. Secret values are always masked for security. Requires organization context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | Public ID (GUID) of the project. If omitted, uses the active project context. | |
| environmentId | Yes | Public ID (GUID) of the environment |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral details: 'Secret values are always masked for security' and 'Requires organization context.' These disclose output behavior and a precondition, which enhances transparency beyond what annotations alone provide.
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?
The description is succinct and well-structured, consisting of two short sentences. It states the core function, adds a key security note, and mentions a prerequisite without any redundant or verbose content.
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 gives enough context for the tool's purpose and behavior: it retrieves resolved variables, masks secrets, and requires organization context. Although output details are not fully specified, the description conveys the essential information needed to understand and invoke the tool 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?
Both parameters (projectId and environmentId) have clear schema descriptions covering their types and meanings. The description text itself does not add additional semantic information beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's function: 'Get resolved variables for a specific environment.' It is specific about the resource type (environment) and the action (get resolved variables). It also distinguishes itself by noting that secret values are masked, which helps set expectations compared to potential alternatives like resolve_variables.
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 a prerequisite ('Requires organization context') but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over similar siblings such as resolve_variables, get_environment_auth, or get_environment_pins. There is some implied context about usage, but no direct comparison or alternative 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.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.