List all variables defined in the active environment and optionally reveal sensitive values after confirmation. Inspect configuration before running API requests or tests.
List all variables defined in the active environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirmSecrets | No | Must be true when includeSecrets is true | |
| includeSecrets | No | Return sensitive variable values instead of masking them |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that values are masked by default, not that includeSecrets/confirmSecrets gate sensitive output, not that the operation is read-only. The one bit of behavior an agent most needs (that secrets are hidden unless explicitly requested) exists only in the schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though the space saved is not reinvested in behavior or parameter guidance.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what comes back (variable names plus masked values) and flag the secrets gate, but it says nothing about output shape or sensitivity. For a tool whose main risk is secret exposure, this leaves a significant gap.
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 100% and both parameters are self-documenting booleans with their dependency rule stated, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about when or why to set includeSecrets.
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 and resource ('List all variables') and scopes it to the 'active environment', which separates it from env_list_variables-style siblings such as env_get_variable (single variable) and env_list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 phrase 'active environment' implicitly tells the agent that env_switch must select the target first, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to env_get_variable for single-value lookups. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.