Retrieve all Apache NiFi parameter contexts and their parameters, with sensitive values masked, to inspect or audit configuration before managing flows.
All parameter contexts and their parameters. Sensitive values are masked.
Backed by GET /flow/parameter-contexts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: sensitive values are masked in the output, and it discloses the backing endpoint (GET /flow/parameter-contexts).
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?
Two short sentences: the payload description is front-loaded, followed by the masking caveat and the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields; it correctly confines itself to what is returned (contexts plus parameters) and the masking behavior. For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool this is essentially complete, with only the list-vs-single routing left implicit.
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 no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it introduces no contradictory parameter talk.
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 the exact resource ('all parameter contexts and their parameters'), which cleanly distinguishes this list operation from the singular sibling nifi_get_parameter_context. It lacks an explicit verb like 'List', but the scope is unambiguous and an agent can match it to the right task.
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 only implied: the plural 'all parameter contexts' suggests this is the bulk-retrieval option versus nifi_get_parameter_context for a single context, but the description never states that condition or names the alternative. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.