Get Settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made or that secrets are masked by default (though the parameter schema covers this). It adds basic context (timezone, auth status) but lacks richer transparency, such as performance implications or response shape.

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 states the verb, resource, and example fields without any waste. It earns its place and remains easy to scan.

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 getter with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is complete. It communicates what the tool does and highlights key return fields, while the schema handles parameter details and the output schema documents the response structure. No additional information is needed.

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% with a single optional parameter (includeSecrets) that has a detailed explanation including security implications and a global environment variable toggle. The description does not add parameter information, but the schema fully covers it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource ('current Uptime Kuma server settings'), listing concrete examples of returned fields. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on monitors, notifications, Docker hosts, etc., making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context that this tool reads current server settings, and the schema's parameter description offers important guidance about the includeSecrets flag (defaulting to off for transcript safety). However, there is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives, though no sibling directly competes for this function.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.