Reports the server's available read-only capabilities and trust state. Use it to check what Gungnir operations a client can perform without exposing project paths.
Report the server's available read-only capabilities and trust state without exposing project paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the call is read-only and it deliberately omits project paths (a privacy guarantee). It says nothing about what the returned capabilities/trust data look like or what triggers a non-success response.
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 tightly written sentence with no filler. The key constraint (read-only) and the privacy guarantee are both front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what 'capabilities' and 'trust state' contain, and it stays abstract. For a trivial zero-parameter status tool this is adequate to select it, but not enough to anticipate the response.
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 nothing for the description to clarify beyond that; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not misleadingly imply any inputs.
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 a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('the server's available read-only capabilities and trust state'), which tells an agent this is a status/introspection tool. It is not quite 5 because 'trust state' is undefined jargon the agent cannot resolve from the description alone.
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: an agent can infer this is the tool to call to learn what the server can do before other operations. There is no explicit 'call this when...' statement and no stated prerequisites or exclusions, though with no sibling tools there is no alternative to disambiguate against.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.