Retrieve metadata for named parameters at a specified operator path, or for all parameters when names are omitted.
Metadata for named parameters (or all if names omitted).
path (<class 'str'>): Operator path.
names (list[str]): Parameter names; None = all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| names | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to carry the safety or behavior burden, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does add the important 'names omitted = all' behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what the metadata contains, or what happens on an invalid path. 'Metadata' implies a non-mutating call but leaves details unstated.
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 extremely compact: a headline behavior, then two parameter definitions. There is no filler, the key optionality is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter tool, invocation is mostly clear, but with no output schema and no annotations, an agent does not know the shape of the returned metadata or when to prefer sibling parameter tools. It is enough for a basic call but incomplete for confident tool selection.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: path is clarified as an operator path, and names are parameter names with None meaning all. This adds real meaning beyond the generic schema titles and default value.
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 identifies the tool as returning metadata for operator parameters and mentions the 'all parameters' behavior. It is specific about the resource, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and does not contrast itself with sibling tools such as par_get or par_get_all.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use par_info versus par_get, par_get_all, or par_set. The only usage note is that omitting names returns all parameters; an agent must infer relationships from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.