get_configRetrieve the current server configuration including runtime overrides to verify which settings are active.
Return the current server configuration including any runtime overrides.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| languages | Yes | ||
| config_path | Yes | ||
| overrides_applied | Yes | ||
| severity_threshold | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that the returned configuration includes runtime overrides, which tells the agent that changes from set_config_override are reflected. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource immediately.
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 no parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context. It mentions runtime overrides, which is important for a configuration read, and there is no need to explain return values given the output schema.
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 takes zero parameters (empty schema), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because none exist.
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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and names the resource 'current server configuration', further clarifying scope with 'including any runtime overrides'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_config_override and clear_config_overrides, which are write operations.
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 context is implied by the read-only nature of the tool, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like set_config_override. It gives no exclusions or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.