Retrieve a phone-shared variable using its name, ensuring only your device can decrypt the value since the relay cannot access its contents.
Read a variable shared with the phone (sealed with the account key the phone issued; the relay cannot read it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful security property: the variable is sealed with the phone-issued key and the relay cannot read it. However, it omits return format, error behavior, and permission details, so transparency is only partial.
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 with no filler. The security parenthetical is the only extra clause and it earns its place by communicating an important constraint.
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 one-parameter read operation, the description provides the essential purpose and an important security caveat. However, since there is no output schema, it does not state what the tool returns or how it behaves on missing variables, leaving an agent with enough to invoke but not fully anticipate the outcome.
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 schema only exposes a `name` string with minLength 1, and the description adds context by clarifying that the name refers to a variable shared with the phone. Coverage is 0%, but the single self-evident parameter limits the need for deeper explanation.
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 clearly states a verb and resource: 'Read a variable,' and the shared-with-phone qualifier adds specificity. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as askew_variables_set, but the read/write contrast is readily inferred.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like askew_variables_set. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so the correct usage context must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.