Reads the current field schema from .glean/schema.json to support connector configuration and development.
Read the current field schema from .glean/schema.json.
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": "get_schema"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The tool has no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Read', implying non-destructive, read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), permission requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a simple read, this is minimally adequate but could be more precise.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place—verb, resource, and location are all specified.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return format (e.g., 'returns a JSON object representing the schema') but omission is minor.
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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, which is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'current field schema from .glean/schema.json'. It unambiguously distinguishes from siblings like 'infer_schema' (which infers) and 'update_schema' (which modifies), making purpose immediately obvious.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implicitly a prerequisite for schema modifications, the description does not state this or mention any context (e.g., 'before updating the schema, read the current one').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.