get_configurationReads the OpenRouter model, reasoning setting, temperature, and measured presets this watermark remover uses. Makes no model call.
Read which OpenRouter model, reasoning setting and temperature this server uses, and the measured presets available. Makes no model call.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact beyond them — that invoking it triggers no model call, i.e. no cost or outbound inference — which is valuable for an agent deciding whether it is safe/cheap to call.
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 front-loaded sentence that lists the returned fields first and appends the no-model-call caveat. No filler, nothing restated from the title.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does: the configured model, reasoning setting, temperature, and available measured presets. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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?
Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify or compensate for.
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 (Read) plus specific resource (the server's configuration) and an explicit enumeration of the fields returned: OpenRouter model, reasoning setting, temperature, and measured presets. The sole sibling, remove_watermark, is unrelated, so no differentiation is required.
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 infers it can call this to discover current configuration. The clause 'Makes no model call' usefully signals the call is free and side-effect-light, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.