get_principlesReturns turva.dev's engagement principles: async-only, least access, the result shows up in scanner numbers, and open and verifiable. Use this when a user asks how turva.dev works with clients or what rules an engagement follows. Read-only: returns static JSON and changes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description adds 'returns static JSON and changes nothing,' reinforcing the safety profile and specifying the return format. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though somewhat redundant.
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 concise sentences: first states the primary function and content, second gives usage guidance, third clarifies read-only behavior. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words or repetition.
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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, content, usage, and safety. It is fully self-contained and leaves no significant gaps for an agent.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter details. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return content and behavior instead.
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 'turva.dev's engagement principles' and lists them, using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_services or get_security_evidence by focusing on engagement principles.
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 usage context: 'Use this when a user asks how turva.dev works with clients or what rules an engagement follows.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.
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 returns a distinct category of information: readiness score, principles, security evidence, and services. Even though readiness and security evidence both relate to verification, their descriptions clearly separate agent-readiness scanning from web-security scanning.
All tools follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern with clear, descriptive nouns: readiness, principles, security_evidence, services. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Four tools is on the lower end but appropriate for a read-only informational server about a single company. Each tool has its own scope and none feel redundant.
The server covers the main self-disclosure surface: readiness, security evidence, principles, and service catalog. A contact or get_started tool might be a minor addition, but the core informational purpose is satisfied.