get_server_configuration

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

The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: that some configuration fields may be undefined or have default values until the first connection is established. This helps the agent interpret potentially unexpected responses.

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?

The description is a single sentence with two meaningful clauses: the primary purpose and a useful behavioral caveat. No wasted words; both parts contribute essential information.

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, zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and an important edge case (fields may be undefined/default), which is sufficient for selecting and invoking this tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema coverage.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'MCP server runtime configuration', which clearly states what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on streams, timebase instances, queries, and other resources.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives, but it is the only tool among siblings related to server configuration, so usage is implied. The caveat about undefined/default fields gives some contextual guidance for setting expectations.

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