Check the Ollama server's effective configuration, including default model, base URL, context size, and timeout, to confirm tool defaults or debug connectivity.
Report the server's effective configuration.
Returns the default model, Ollama base URL, context size, and request timeout. Use to confirm which model the tools will use by default or to debug connectivity. Returns a JSON object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON object and names its payload fields, and 'Report' implies a non-mutating operation. It does not discuss error behavior or access constraints, but the behavior of a config-reporting tool is sufficiently clear.
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?
Four concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by return details and actionable use cases; every sentence 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?
Given a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, enumerates the key fields, and gives concrete usage scenarios. An agent can decide to call it and interpret the result without further information.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates for the absence of parameter documentation by explaining what the returned configuration report contains, which is the only semantic information an agent needs.
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, 'Report', with a concrete resource, 'the server's effective configuration', and enumerates the exact fields returned (default model, Ollama base URL, context size, request timeout). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_models, which lists models rather than reporting overall server configuration.
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 explicitly states when to use it: to confirm the default model the tools will use or to debug connectivity. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool the guidance is specific and useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.