Retrieve the OpenAPI specification document for settings endpoints and schemas.
GET /settings.getOpenApiDocument
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": "settings-getOpenApiDocument"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It does not describe what the tool returns, side effects, or any prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations.
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 extremely short but fails to include essential information about the tool's purpose. It is under-specified rather than concise, as every sentence should add value.
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?
Despite having no parameters and read-only annotations, the description lacks any indication of what the tool returns (e.g., the OpenAPI document content). It is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's output.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, but since the description provides no additional meaning about the tool's operation, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 is 'GET /settings.getOpenApiDocument', which merely restates the endpoint from the tool name without clarifying that it retrieves the OpenAPI specification document. It uses a generic HTTP verb+path pattern without stating the purpose.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like settings-getDokployVersion or settings-health. The agent receives no context about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.