bruno_get_environmentInspect a Bruno environment to view its variables, ensuring secrets are automatically redacted for safe exposure.
Inspect a Bruno environment. Variables marked as secrets are always redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | Yes | Collection path relative to workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections). | |
| environment | Yes | Environment name or path (e.g. Local or environments/Local.yml). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / collection / descriptionPrevious value: -"Collection identifier: the collection's path relative to the workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections), not its display name. It may be nested, for example collections/hotel."New value: +"Collection path relative to workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections)."Input schema / properties / environment / descriptionPrevious value: -"Environment reference, either a bare name (Local) or a collection-relative path (environments/Local.yml)."New value: +"Environment name or path (e.g. Local or environments/Local.yml)."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses one important behavior: secret variables are always redacted in the output. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention potential errors or permission requirements. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure, but it only partially fulfills this.
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 that leads with the core purpose and then adds a crucial detail about secret redaction. It is concise, free of filler, and well-structured; every word contributes to the tool's understanding.
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 get operation with two well-documented parameters, the description provides sufficient context: it names the action, the resource, and a key output behavior (redaction). It does not explicitly state the return format, but 'inspect' implies retrieving the environment's details, and the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap.
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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (collection and environment), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, making this a neutral score.
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 action ('Inspect') and the resource ('a Bruno environment'), which distinguishes it from create/update/delete operations. It does not explicitly contrast with bruno_list_environments, but 'inspect' implies fetching details of a specific environment, making the purpose reasonably clear.
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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a single environment's details as opposed to listing environments or running requests, leaving the selection decision to the agent's interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.