Display the resolved, loaded configuration for the AWS SSO MCP server, excluding secrets, so you can verify active settings before managing AWS accounts or roles.
Show the resolved, loaded configuration (it never contains secrets).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the configuration is 'resolved, loaded' and 'never contains secrets,' and 'Show' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or other operational traits beyond the secret exclusion.
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 with no unnecessary wording. Both the action and the key safety caveat are stated efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple and parameterless, and an output schema exists to describe return values. The description covers the essential context—resolved/loaded configuration and absence of secrets—though it could explicitly contrast with config_validate for fuller completeness.
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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description cannot add meaning beyond an empty schema.
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 ('Show') and resource ('resolved, loaded configuration'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling config_validate tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as config_validate. The implied usage is to inspect the effective configuration, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.