Read realm and instance identity-hygiene settings—brute-force protection, password policy, OTP policy, and registration—to audit or troubleshoot authentication configuration.
[READ] Realm / instance settings relevant to identity hygiene (brute-force protection, password policy, OTP policy, registration).
Args: target: IdP target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' prefix mostly restates structured data. The description does add genuine context the annotation lacks: the enumerated categories of settings returned, and that 'target' falls back to a default when omitted. No mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or what the response shape is.
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?
Front-loads the read tag and resource, then the returned setting families, then the one argument; every line earns its place. Slightly terse on the argument side but there is no 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?
For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is fetched but not what comes back, and there is no fallback behavior documented for invalid targets. The gap is modest but real given there is no output schema to carry the return-value burden.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description in the schema, so the description carries the burden and partially meets it: it says the value is an 'IdP target name from config' and that omission selects the default. It does not say what happens on an unknown target or what valid values look like, leaving a real gap for a config-derived identifier.
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 (read) plus resource (realm/instance settings) and enumerates the setting families returned: brute-force protection, password policy, OTP policy, registration. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like list_clients or mfa_coverage_analysis, which cover different scopes. It stops short of stating why an agent would pick this over the similarly-named identity_overview.
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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The '[READ]' tag and the 'identity hygiene' framing imply the use case, but the agent must infer it. Nothing tells the agent whether this is a good first step before an audit tool or a follow-up to one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.