Lists plugin settings for a TRMNL profile, optionally filtering by plugin ID or calendar plugins, so you can inspect configured integrations before updating them.
List my plugin settings TRMNL GET /api/plugin_settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| profile | No | Configured profile name; defaults to default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the underlying REST route (GET /api/plugin_settings), which largely restates the read-only nature, and says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what a listing contains.
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 short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity borders on under-specification, but nothing is wasted or buried.
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 zero-required-parameter listing tool with a safety-covering annotation set and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. The gaps are the missing filter guidance for plugin_id/profile and the lack of any routing guidance among the numerous similar plugin-setting tools.
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 only 50%: the nested query object itself has no description, so nothing tells the agent that plugin_id must be nested under query. The description does not mention the plugin_id filter (or the special "calendars" value) or the profile parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("List my plugin settings") and scopes it to the caller's own settings, which distinguishes it from collection-wide reads. However, it gives no hint about how it differs from nearby siblings such as trmnl_list_plugins, trmnl_get_plugin_setting_details, or trmnl_get_plugin_setting_data.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many other plugin-setting readers in the sibling list. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right entry point for retrieving settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.