Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cloudflare-mcp-pro

cloudflare-mcp-pro

by helbertparanhos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_zone_setting

Read-only

Retrieve a specific Cloudflare zone setting, such as SSL or HTTPS status, to check current configuration.

Instructions

Get a single zone setting (e.g. ssl, always_use_https, min_tls_version).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "zone_id": "<zone_id>",
      "setting": "<setting>"
    },
    "name": "get_zone_setting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zone_idYesThe Cloudflare zone ID (32-char hex). Get it from list_zones.
settingYesSetting id, e.g. ssl, always_use_https, min_tls_version, brotli, http3, security_level.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it retrieves a single setting, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavior like error conditions or response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loading the core action and resource. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with well-documented parameters and informative annotations, the description is adequate. It could optionally mention the return value, but the current version sufficiently enables correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description provides example values but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already offers. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a single zone setting') with concrete examples like 'ssl, always_use_https, min_tls_version'. It effectively distinguishes the read operation from write operations (e.g., update_zone_setting), though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies its purpose but does not state prerequisites, suggested contexts, or when to avoid it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools