Get the current context routing mode for the organization. Returns 'keyword_llm', 'keyword_only', or 'llm_only'.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_context_routing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the possible return values ('keyword_llm', 'keyword_only', 'llm_only') but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error/permission behavior. The verb 'get' implies non-mutating behavior, but more context could be added.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the possible return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the zero parameters and absence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for a simple getter operation, though it could optionally mention that it has no side effects, but that is implicit.
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 does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The description mentions the return values, which is sufficient for this zero-parameter tool, earning the baseline of 4.
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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('current context routing mode for the organization'), and specifies the exact return values. It distinguishes from sibling set_context_routing by focusing on retrieval of the current state.
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 usage is implied by the verb 'Get' and the resource description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_context or set_context_routing. No when-not or alternative names are provided.
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.