Read the active configuration summary of the running Clash/mihomo instance, including frontend, mode, and controller address.
读取当前运行配置摘要（前端、mode、控制器地址）。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_active_config"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a summary read scoped to running state and lists the three constituent fields, but does not state read-only/side-effect-free behavior, whether sensitive values are redacted, or how snapshot timing relates to reload_config.
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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded and the returned contents grouped in a parenthetical. Nothing is padded, though the terseness leaves behavior and usage to inference.
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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the fields an agent will get back, which is the key missing structure. Only the read-only guarantee and the relationship to reload_config/switch_profile are absent.
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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The parenthetical field list is extra context rather than parameter documentation, which is appropriate here.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ("读取当前运行配置摘要" = read current running configuration summary) and enumerates the contents (frontend, mode, controller address). It implicitly separates itself from reload_config/switch_profile by saying "running" (live state), though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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: "当前运行" suggests reading live state rather than persisted profiles from list_profiles, and the absence of any mutation verb suggests a safe inspection call. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to reload_config/switch_profile for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.