Inspect a project's deployment configuration for a chosen environment while keeping passwords protected, so you can verify settings before deploying.
Inspect project deployment configuration. All passwords remain strictly protected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project name | |
| environment | No | Environment name (default: production) | production |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact: passwords in the returned configuration are protected/redacted, which warns the agent not to expect secrets. It doesn't say whether they are omitted, masked, or otherwise altered, and says nothing about the shape or size of the returned 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the redaction warning in the second sentence is directly relevant. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.
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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the basics are covered. However, there is no output schema, and the description doesn't indicate what 'deployment configuration' actually contains or how it varies by environment, leaving the agent guessing at the response.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'project' and 'environment' (including its production default) documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource ('Inspect project deployment configuration'), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_projects and deploy_project. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from wording rather than stated.
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?
The use case is implied: fetch the deployment configuration of one project rather than listing projects or deploying. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the environment parameter, and no routing to an alternative tool for adjacent needs such as test_connection or set_target_option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.