get_header_canonThe GSC wire-header canon (v3.2 — The Ghost Eighteen (locked July 18 2026)) — the eighteen x-gsc-* headers every GSC surface emits, in canon order. Curl-auditable against any live GSC surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the version (v3.2), lock date, and that the output is the canonical list. It does not state side effects or idempotency, but the nature (get) suggests read-only, and the detail is high for a simple retrieval.
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 two sentences: one defines the resource, the second adds actionable context. Every word is necessary; no redundancy.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (canonical list of 18 headers) and provides version context. It is complete for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention typical use cases.
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 no parameter information is needed. Baseline is 4 per guidelines, and the description does not need to add param info.
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 retrieves the GSC wire-header canon, specifically the eighteen x-gsc-* headers in canon order. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., list_protocols, list_members) by focusing on headers.
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 implies usage for auditing against live GSC surfaces ('Curl-auditable against any live GSC surface'), but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
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 targets a distinct resource (headers, protocols, members, signals, dimensions) with clear actions (get, list, resolve). There is no overlap in functionality; even the two protocol tools differ in granularity (list vs. get).
Naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores and lowercase. Minor inconsistency: 'list_sparks_dimensions' uses plural while 'resolve_sparks_dimension' uses singular, but overall the pattern is clear.
With 9 tools covering headers, protocols, members, signals, and dimensions, the count is well-proportioned for the domain. Each tool addresses a specific query type without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
The tool surface provides complete read access to all canonical entities: headers, protocols, members, signals, and dimensions. Listing and resolving operations are covered for each entity, matching the server's stated purpose of querying agent protocol data.