Returns protocol versions, hash algorithm, gate thresholds, input limits, rejection reasons, and no-side-effect declaration to verify policy constraints before use.
Return the protocol versions, hash algorithm, default gate thresholds, input limits, rejection reasons and the declared absence of side effects.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reports policy details including a "declared absence of side effects," which adds useful context, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool itself is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how the information is returned.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned policy details without filler or redundancy. Every listed item appears intended to help an agent understand the tool's output.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the primary specification. It lists the returned policy fields comprehensively enough for a no-argument informational tool, though it could specify format or scope more fully.
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 and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension is appropriately scored 4.
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, "Return," and enumerates the policy details returned: protocol versions, hash algorithm, gate thresholds, input limits, rejection reasons, and side-effect declaration. This clearly identifies an informational tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the verification/reset/export siblings beyond its read-only inventory purpose.
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, when not to use it, or which alternatives exist. Usage is only weakly implied by the name and by the fact that it returns policy metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.