Fetch current hotlink protection settings to verify if hotlinking is blocked and view allowed domains.
Get current hotlink protection settings
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_hotlink_protection"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only restates the action ('Get') and adds no details about return format, potential errors, authentication requirements, or side effects. It provides minimal behavioral transparency beyond the tool name.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any waste. It is concise and well-structured.
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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, and simple read operation), the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not explain what the returned 'settings' contain or the exact format, which would be helpful since no output schema exists. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.
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 baseline is 4. The input schema is empty and the description adds no parameter information (there is nothing to add). The description does not detract from parameter clarity.
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 'Get current hotlink protection settings' uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('hotlink protection settings'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like enable_hotlink_protection and disable_hotlink_protection. It states exactly what the tool does.
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 a read-only use case by using 'Get', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the enable/disable alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or additional context, though the purpose is clear enough for a simple getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.