Displays the active Grok Web MCP settings, their configuration sources, and what each option controls so you can verify behavior and know when a client restart is required after changes.
The settings in effect (defaults < config.json < GROK_WEB_MCP_* env vars), where each came from, and what each one does. Settings are read when the server starts; restart the MCP client after changing them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: precedence order (defaults < config.json < environment variables), provenance reporting, and that settings are read only at server startup. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the introspection framing makes that clear enough.
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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reports and followed by the key lifecycle caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler text.
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, parameterless introspection tool with no output schema, the description explains both the returned content and the startup/restart behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly routing the agent away from grok_set_limits or grok_status, but the core information is present.
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, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics where none exist.
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 identifies the resource and returned content: current settings, their precedence sources, and what each setting does. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not name or distinguish itself from related siblings such as grok_set_limits or grok_status.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose: inspect current settings and their provenance. The note that settings are read at server startup and require an MCP client restart after changes adds operational context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like grok_set_limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.