Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Spring Toolkit MCP

Spring Toolkit MCP

by giaffa86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

inspect_application_properties

Inspect Spring Boot application properties and YAML files, redacting sensitive values for secure review.

Instructions

Read Spring application properties/YAML with sensitive values redacted.

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": "inspect_application_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoProject directory to inspect.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions sensitive values redaction but omits important details like file name expectations, profile handling, or output format.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the verb 'Read'. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or elaboration.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It identifies the core function and key safety feature. However, it could be improved by noting expected file names or output structure.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter description is clear ('Project directory to inspect.'). The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Read Spring application properties/YAML', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from runtime-focused siblings like get_config_properties by implying file-based inspection.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_config_properties or get_env_properties. The description lacks any context about usage scenarios or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools