contract-testing_get_system_preferencesRetrieve system-wide preferences for contract testing to help AI assistants inspect configuration settings and support preference-aware test workflows.
Retrieve system-wide preferences.
Toolset: User, Tokens and Preferences
Parameters: None
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _links | No | ||
| _embedded | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.43.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "EmbeddedLink": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "href": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "templated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "Preference": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "_links": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "self": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/EmbeddedLink"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "uuid": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {}
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "_embedded": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "preferences": {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/Preference"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_links": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "self": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/EmbeddedLink"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.40.0v0.34.0v0.27.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description contributes only the "system-wide" scope qualifier; it says nothing about who can read these preferences or whether values are secrets/redacted, which would be genuinely useful added context for a preferences endpoint.
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 operative sentence is front-loaded and brief, which is right for a no-argument read tool. The trailing toolset and "Parameters: None" metadata are boilerplate that repeat what the empty schema already shows, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.
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 parameterless read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the agent needs little more than the purpose and scope, both of which are present. The only shortfall is not distinguishing this endpoint from the user-preferences sibling by name.
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?
There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description's "Parameters: None" line merely restates the empty schema and adds no meaning either way.
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 and resource ("Retrieve system-wide preferences") and the word "system-wide" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling contract-testing_get_user_preferences, but it never names that sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 scope word "system-wide" hints at when to choose this over a user-scoped preferences tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer the routing rule from the adjective alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.