Skip to main content
Glama
OpenCDR MCP

OpenCDR MCP

Official
by dbnz-io

opencdr_configuration_flags

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve owner runtime flag types, permissions, and the separate Deploy application mechanism; uses Fleet authority in fleet mode and standalone Core in Core mode.

Instructions

Read owner runtime flag types/permissions and the separate Deploy application mechanism.

In fleet mode this tool uses the Fleet authority directly; Core mode uses standalone Core.

Tool call template

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": "opencdr_configuration_flags"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context by noting the authority used differs by deployment mode (Fleet vs standalone Core), which an agent could not infer from annotations alone. It still omits what the flag/permission records contain and whether results vary by caller.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the mode caveat follows. The wording is jargon-heavy ("owner runtime flag types/permissions") enough to mildly blunt the front-loading but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of conveying what comes back, and it only gestures at it ("flag types/permissions", "Deploy application mechanism"). The deployment-mode note is valuable context, but the shape and scope of the returned data remain underspecified for an exploratory read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related guidance is missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb ("Read") and a resource, but the resource phrase "owner runtime flag types/permissions and the separate Deploy application mechanism" is dense and hard to parse, and it is not differentiated from the sibling opencdr_configuration_ownership. An agent gets a rough sense that this surfaces configuration/flag metadata, but not a crisp picture of what it returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as opencdr_configuration_ownership, nor any preconditions for use. The fleet-vs-Core sentence explains an internal routing behavior rather than guiding tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.