brc_get_deployment_policyReturns the deployment capability and permission summary, including enabled action groups and development-mode status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / connectionRefRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Opaque Red connection reference returned by brc_confirm_company_connection. Pass this exact value on every later tool call when the MCP client rotates session ids (for example Vibe/Mistral). Keep reusing the same connectionRef after successful tool calls — do not start a new connection because a lookup returned empty or partial data. It is not an API key and does not contain credentials.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / connectionRefAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Opaque Red connection reference returned by brc_confirm_company_connection. Pass this exact value on every later tool call when the MCP client rotates session ids (for example Vibe/Mistral). Keep reusing the same connectionRef after successful tool calls — do not start a new connection because a lookup returned empty or partial data. It is not an API key and does not contain credentials.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / connectionRefRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Opaque Red connection reference returned by brc_confirm_company_connection. Pass this exact value on every later tool call when the MCP client rotates session ids (for example Vibe/Mistral). Keep reusing the same connectionRef after successful tool calls — do not start a new connection because a lookup returned empty or partial data. It is not an API key and does not contain credentials.",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds some useful behavioral context by specifying the summary includes action groups and development-mode status, but it does not disclose additional traits such as authentication needs or scope limitations. This is adequate but not enriched.
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 a single sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the main return value and immediately provides the two most relevant content categories, making it easy to scan.
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 zero parameters, an empty schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides the key return-value information an agent needs. Because there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns, though it could be slightly more explicit about the permission summary's structure.
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 and the description correctly does not mention any. Since there is nothing to document beyond the schema, the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies and the description is sufficient.
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 the deployment capability and permission summary' with specific content details, including 'enabled action groups and development-mode status.' This is a specific verb plus resource and effectively distinguishes it from all sibling getter tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or alternative tool mentions. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context without support.
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.