Retrieve Wave Terminal settings from settings.json, optionally filtered by namespace prefix such as ai, term, window, or app, to inspect or verify current configuration values.
Read Wave Terminal settings from ~/.waveterm/settings.json. Optionally filter by namespace prefix (e.g. 'ai', 'term', 'window', 'app').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | No | Optional namespace prefix to filter keys (e.g. 'ai', 'term', 'window', 'app') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the backing file (~/.waveterm/settings.json), confirming a read-only operation against local disk, but says nothing about what is returned, whether sensitive values are redacted, or error behavior if the file is missing.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the source location is front-loaded before the optional filter behavior. Every clause 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 single-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly self-sufficient: the agent knows the source file and how to narrow results. The only gap is return shape, but with no output schema and a trivially predictable key/value result, that omission is minor.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is already documented as an optional namespace prefix. The description only restates the same examples ('ai', 'term', 'window', 'app') without adding matching semantics — e.g. whether the prefix is a substring or dot-path match, or what happens when no match exists.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Wave Terminal settings') plus the exact source file (~/.waveterm/settings.json). It is distinguishable from the mutating sibling wave_set_setting by the read-only framing, though it never names that sibling 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?
The optional namespace filter is explained with concrete examples, giving implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus wave_set_setting or the other wave_get_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.