get_delivery_settingsGets how often Debriefing runs a monitoring cycle for the workspace, the cadences the plan allows, and whether a finished cycle goes out by email and to Slack. Admin only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| delivery_channels | Yes | ||
| monitoring_cadence | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral constraint not present in annotations: 'Admin only', an authorization requirement the agent must satisfy before calling.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence names the verb and resource first, then enumerates the returned fields, and closes with the admin prerequisite. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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 an output schema present, the description need not document return values, yet it usefully previews them; annotations cover the safety profile and the admin requirement is stated. What is missing is any routing hint to set_delivery_channels/set_monitoring_cadence for an agent choosing among the delivery-settings family.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about arguments and instead uses its space to describe the returned settings, which is appropriate for a parameterless getter.
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?
States a specific verb (gets) and resource (delivery settings), then spells out exactly what is returned: monitoring cycle frequency, plan-allowed cadences, and email/Slack delivery of finished cycles. It is clearly the read counterpart to set_delivery_channels and set_monitoring_cadence, though it never names those siblings, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied by the read-only framing and by the presence of the set_delivery_channels/set_monitoring_cadence siblings, but the description never says when to call this versus those tools or that it should be used to inspect current state before mutating it. The only explicit guidance is the 'Admin only' prerequisite.
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.