Show the active database gateway configuration, including field masking rules, table policies, and audit settings, to verify security controls are applied.
Show the active gateway configuration: field masking rules, table policies, and audit settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral content by naming the three configuration surfaces returned (masking, policies, audit settings), but omits that this is read-only, whether it requires elevated permission to view policy config, and whether the settings apply immediately or are merely displayed. Useful but incomplete for an unannotated tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no padding; the scope is established before detail. It is arguably too terse rather than too long — a short trailing clause on when to prefer it would cost nothing and buy a lot.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), so the description does not need to document return values or argument formats. However, for a config-inspection tool with no annotations, the description should still establish that it is a non-mutating read and roughly how fresh or complete the displayed configuration is.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No schema-vs-description gap exists here.
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?
Specific verb ("Show") plus a well-scoped resource ("active gateway configuration") and an enumeration of the three sections returned: field masking rules, table policies, audit settings. This clearly separates it from the data-access siblings (query_table, list_tables, describe_table) which is enough for an agent to pick correctly, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the noun phrase — an agent would infer it is the call to make when it needs to know the gateway's current masking/policy/audit posture. There is no explicit "use when..." clause and no statement about what it is not for, so the caller must infer the boundary with query_audit_log or describe_table.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.