Displays the active policy file path and contents, plus the audit log location, so you can verify which policy is enforced and where audit records are written.
Show the active policy file path and contents, and where the audit log is written.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a non-destructive read and the sentence enumerates exactly what is disclosed, which is the key behavioral fact here, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior when no policy file exists, or side effects.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the primary output (policy file path) and then the secondary one (audit log location). No filler or repetition of the name.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description need only establish purpose and scope, which it does for all three returned items. Minor gap: no mention of the missing-file / unconfigured-policy case, which is a plausible state for this tool.
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 there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.
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?
Specific verb 'Show' paired with concrete resources: the active policy file path, its contents, and the audit log location. That set of outputs distinguishes it from siblings like read_file or audit_tail, though the description never explicitly says so.
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 only implied by what the tool returns – an agent can infer 'call this to discover policy configuration' – but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as read_file or audit_tail for related data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.