Read BunkerWeb global configuration settings, optionally with defaults and method metadata. Use for global-level inspection; call get_service for a single service.
Read global settings; full=true adds defaults, methods=true adds the method that set each. Cached up to 10 min. Use get_service for one service's settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Include defaulted settings | |
| methods | No | Include method metadata |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious trait annotations cannot express: results are cached for up to 10 minutes, which matters for read-after-write flows.
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?
Three short clauses: purpose, flag semantics, caching constraint, then the alternative. Every sentence carries information and the core scope is front-loaded.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter tool this covers purpose, both optional flags, caching, and the sibling boundary. Return shape is not described, but with no output schema present a brief note on the response structure would have closed the last gap.
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 already defines both booleans, but the description goes further by saying exactly what each flag surfaces ('adds defaults', 'adds the method that set each'), clarifying effect rather than just naming the field.
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 and resource ('Read global settings') and immediately scopes what the two flags add. It is clearly distinguishable from update_global_config (write) and get_service (per-service scope).
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?
Explicitly routes per-service reads to get_service, which is the closest sibling. It does not state when to omit the flags or when update_global_config should be preferred, so a small gap remains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.