tailscale_get_tailnet_settingsRetrieve your Tailscale tailnet configuration settings, including device approval, key expiry, and HTTPS certificate status, to audit or verify current network policies.
Get your tailnet settings (device approval, key expiry, HTTPS certificates, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added context is the enumeration of setting categories, which helps but does not disclose auth scope, return shape, or caching behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a no-argument read tool. The trailing 'etc.' slightly weakens precision by leaving the scope of returned settings open-ended.
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-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough: it names the resource and sketches what comes back. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.
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 schema leaves nothing to document and the description has no parameter burden to carry. Baseline of 4 applies; there is no syntax or format detail it could add.
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 ('Get') and resource ('your tailnet settings') and enumerates the categories of settings returned (device approval, key expiry, HTTPS certificates), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling tailscale_update_tailnet_settings. It does not explicitly call out that sibling, but the get/update distinction is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied by the read-only 'get' framing and the parenthetical list of settings, so an agent can infer when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no note on prerequisites or permissions, and no routing to alternatives such as tailscale_get_dns_preferences or tailscale_status for adjacent configuration reads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.