horizon_get_all_remote_configsRetrieve all remote configuration values from horizOn so games and apps can update settings, features, and parameters without redeploying code.
Gets all remote configuration values from horizOn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements, no indication of whether results are cached or how large the payload is, and no return shape. Only the read-only nature is implied by 'Gets'.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded; nothing is padded. Minor blemish: the inconsistent capitalization 'horizOn'.
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-arg, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is the only documentation and it omits what the return actually looks like (key/value config map), whether auth is required, and what an empty result means. It is not sufficient for an agent to call and interpret this confidently.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does not incorrectly imply any hidden arguments.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('all remote configuration values'), and the word 'all' hints at the plural scope. However it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling horizon_get_remote_config, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus horizon_get_remote_config (single-key fetch) or when config data is needed. No mention of authentication prerequisites, even though nearly all siblings are auth-related calls that likely must run first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.