Retrieve a setting's value by key, returning the session override or the effective value from the last slice.
Value of a setting: the session override, else the effective value of the last slice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the resolution order (session override first, then last slice effective value), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the key is missing, or any permissions or side effects.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the return value and its resolution rule. It avoids waste, though the sentence is somewhat fragmentary and could be slightly more self-contained.
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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core resolution behavior but omits key semantics, error behavior, and explicit read-only nature. It is minimally adequate but leaves important gaps.
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%, and the single key parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description does not explain the key's expected format, scope, or valid values, so it adds little beyond the parameter name.
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 what the tool returns: the value of a setting, with fallback from session override to the last slice's effective value. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like set_setting or reset_setting, so it lacks full sibling differentiation, but the resource and behavior are clear.
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 this tool versus set_setting, reset_setting, or other configuration-related siblings. The description explains what the returned value means, but not when an agent should call get_setting or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.