Read BunkerWeb's global configuration settings, optionally including defaulted values and method metadata, to inspect system-wide options before managing individual services.
Read global settings; full=true adds defaults. Results may be 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.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / full / descriptionAdded value: +"Include defaulted settings"Input schema / properties / methods / descriptionAdded value: +"Include method metadata"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's added caveat that results may be cached up to 10 minutes is genuinely new and operationally important for a read tool — it tells the agent the data may be stale. It does not disclose anything about permissions or the shape of the returned settings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then the caching caveat, then the alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 two-boolean read-only tool this covers the essentials: what it returns conceptually (global settings plus optional defaults), staleness (10-minute cache), and where to go for the narrower case. It does not describe the response structure, and with no output schema present that leaves a small gap, but not one that would cause a mis-call.
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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates full=true as adding defaults, which marginally reinforces the schema rather than adding new semantics, and it never mentions the methods parameter at all. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Read global settings") and immediately differentiates from the sibling get_service by naming it for the per-service case. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.
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 the agent to get_service when only one service's settings are needed, which is the primary confusion risk here. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool (e.g., prefer config_get for individual config entries), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.