Retrieve JobManager configuration for a Flink cluster, with optional key search to locate settings such as checkpoint or state backend. Secrets are masked by Flink.
JobManager configuration (secrets are masked by Flink). Use search to filter
keys, e.g. "checkpoint" or "state.backend".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | ||
| cluster | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing that secrets are masked by Flink, which an agent must know before reporting values as authoritative — a real behavioral trait not present in the structured fields.
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 with no filler. The core identity is front-loaded and the usage hint follows immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. But with two optional params at zero schema coverage, the unexplained `cluster` parameter — critical for disambiguating targets in a multi-cluster environment — leaves a material 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It fully covers `search`, including example values, but ignores the `cluster` parameter entirely, leaving half of the interface undocumented in both schema and prose.
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?
States the resource precisely (JobManager configuration) with the retrieval implied, which distinguishes it from the job-level sibling job_config. It does not explicitly say "read/return" or contrast with cluster_overview, so it falls short of a full 5.
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 explains how to narrow results with `search` and gives example keys, which implies a usage pattern. However, it never says when to pick this tool over cluster_overview, job_config, or list_clusters, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.