Retrieve environment variable names for a specified service, with values shown only if you hold secrets:read, to inspect configuration before deploys or debugging.
A service's env var names (values only if you hold secrets:read).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | Service id or `project.service`, e.g. `shop.api` |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: values are returned only with the secrets:read scope. However, it does not say what happens without that scope (names only vs error), nor anything about ordering, volume, or masking.
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?
One short sentence with the key access constraint parenthetically front-loaded; nothing wasted. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which costs a little clarity but no length.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should say the return is a set of key names (and when values appear); it only implies this. For a simple single-param read it is near-adequate but leaves the response shape and the no-scope behavior ambiguous.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single `service` parameter with an id/project.service example, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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 fragment identifies the resource (env var names for a service) but never uses a verb and omits the tool's name/title entirely, so the agent must infer 'list'. It contrasts implicitly with set_env by saying 'names', which helps distinguish read from write.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus setters or other service-inspection siblings; usage is only inferable from the word 'names'. The conditional access note hints at a permission gate but not at tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed