Reads the current non-secret configuration—environment, mock mode, tracking file, write setting, and version—so users can confirm setup before certificate checks.
Configuration courante (sans secrets) : environnement, mode mock, fichier de suivi, écriture, version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that secrets are excluded, which is meaningful security context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, that it has no side effects, or how the output is structured.
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 definition is a single compact sentence that front-loads the key scope 'sans secrets'. The term 'écriture' is slightly ambiguous, but overall there is no wasted text.
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 tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is a useful substitute for an output description. Missing field-level semantics, such as what 'écriture' and 'version' mean precisely, are a minor gap for a simple configuration-inspection tool.
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 schema baseline is 4. The description's list of configuration fields refers to returned content, not input parameters, and therefore does not create ambiguity about how to call the tool.
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 states a specific resource: the current connector configuration (without secrets). It also lists the fields returned, which makes the purpose clear and distinguishes it from the sibling attestation and tracking tools. However, it avoids an explicit action verb and instead relies on the email-like noun phrase 'Configuration courante'.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. An agent can infer that this is a diagnostic or state-inspection call, but that inference is not supported by explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.