Show this Edgegap MCP server's configuration

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, but the description adds material facts beyond them: it makes no API call at all and never exposes the token. That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs before deciding this is a free, safe probe.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the reported config items and ending with the call-timing advice. The first sentence is a long enumeration but each item is a distinct guardrail an agent may need to check, so little is waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return contents, and it does: endpoint, version, hosting mode, read-only flag, allowlist, max_duration ceiling, forced tag, and dry_run-capable tools. This is nearly complete, though it does not state the response format or that the guardrail values may be unset.

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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description could add parameter meaning, and none is needed.

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 (report) and a precise set of resources: which Edgegap API, version, local vs hosted, and the guardrails in force. This distinguishes it clearly from every sibling operation tool, which act on apps, deployments, or relay sessions rather than on the session's own configuration.

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?

Gives explicit invocation triggers: 'Call it first when unsure what this session is allowed to do, or before anything billable.' That is a concrete when-to-use rule rather than an implied one, and no sibling competes for this role.

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