Re-loads and validates the aws-sso-mcp config file, reporting schema or syntax errors without applying changes, so you can catch misconfigurations before they affect account access.
Re-load and validate the config file, reporting errors without applying them.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description does real work by disclosing the key behavioral trait: errors are reported but not applied, so the operation is non-destructive. It leaves residual ambiguity about whether a valid re-load actually takes effect in the running process and what happens if the file is missing or unreadable.
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; the action comes first and the non-applying guarantee follows immediately.
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 no-argument tool with an output schema, the description covers the action and its safety profile adequately. The remaining gap is the relationship to config_show and the prerequisite state of the config file.
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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing further the description could add on parameter meaning.
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 pair (re-load and validate) and resource (the config file), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It distinguishes the action from the sibling config_show (display) by emphasizing validation, though it never names config_show directly.
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: an agent can infer this is for checking config correctness after edits, but the description never says when to pick this over config_show or what precondition (e.g. a config file on disk) must hold. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.