d1jiema_settings_readRead D1Jiema account settings, including configuration details with the API token automatically masked. Use it to verify current SMS workflow settings before managing numbers, messages, or balances.
Read D1Jiema settings. The API token is always masked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layout | No | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| values | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations and schema — that the API token is always masked in the response — but discloses nothing else about permissions or failure modes.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the masking note as a secondary detail. Every sentence earns its place.
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 parameterless read tool with an output schema and covering annotations, the description is essentially complete; it even flags the masked token, which the schema may not. It only lacks any routing guidance relative to its sibling tools.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics to clarify or omit. The description neither helps nor hurts here.
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 states a specific verb+resource ("Read D1Jiema settings"), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling d1jiema_settings_update. It is clear but does not explicitly name the sibling or further scope what 'settings' covers.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the read/update alternative (d1jiema_settings_update) or d1jiema_setup_local. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.