Check the active config file to see which rule selected it, what each section contains, and what is invalid or silently ignored.
Check the config file this server is running on: which file was used, which rule selected it, what was read from each section, and anything wrong or silently ignored
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strict | No | Treat warnings as failures in the passed field (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even without annotations, the description conveys the tool's scope and behavior: it inspects config, reports per-section reads, surfaces issues, and flags silently ignored items. This carries the behavioral burden well for a read-only validation tool, though it doesn't explicitly state that no changes are made or what the return shape looks like.
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 packs in useful specifics without rambling. Its list of checks is moderately long but each element earns its place by clarifying what the user will learn from the tool.
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 description covers the main intent and the key outputs, which is helpful given there is no output schema. It doesn't fully explain the return format or whether results are printed or returned, but the listed content is comprehensive enough for an agent to know what it's getting.
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 one parameter 'strict' is fully described in the input schema as treating warnings as failures, so the schema covers its semantics completely. The description doesn't add additional parameter context, landing at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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 ('Check'), names the resource ('the config file this server is running on'), and details the exact output categories: which file, rule, section reads, errors, and silently ignored items. This provides a crisp, unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from generic diagnostic siblings.
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 makes the scenario clear: use this when you need to validate or inspect the server's effective config. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclude other diagnostic tools, but the very specific scope gives a solid sense of when it applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.