ris_show_configDisplay the active resolved profile (username, account, workspace, partitions) and saved profiles from config.json to verify your RIS Compute2 Slurm job setup.
Show the active resolved profile (username, account, workspace, partitions) and the profiles saved in config.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | Named profile from ~/.risbridge-mcp/config.json. Omit for the default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it shows both the active resolved profile and the saved profiles, which is useful context about the return content, but it doesn't mention whether it reads from disk, errors when config.json is absent, etc.
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?
One tight sentence that front-loads the active profile and then notes the saved profiles. No wasted words.
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 simple read-only tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could be more complete by noting when to prefer it over ris_validate_config or ris_auth_status and by hinting at the return shape, but nothing critical is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already explains the named profile and default behavior. The description adds no extra meaning about the profile parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (Show) and resource (active resolved profile and saved profiles in config.json), and enumerates the fields returned. It is clear enough, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ris_validate_config or ris_set_profile.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as ris_validate_config, ris_auth_status, or ris_discover_profile. The description only says what it shows, not when an agent should reach for it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.