Sora Commander

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_config

Reads a read-only, nonsecret development configuration summary, reporting flags, root count, and rootsConfigured without exposing paths, credentials, identity, or mutating settings.

Instructions

Read-only nonsecret DEV configuration view: reports flags, root count and rootsConfigured boolean only. No paths, credential values, identity or configuration mutation. This view grants no privileges and establishes no protected Broker acceptance.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior, nonsecret scope, absence of mutation, no privilege grant, and no protected Broker acceptance. These are meaningful safety and behavior disclosures beyond the empty schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds precise exclusions and security context. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary wording.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple, has no parameters, and has an output schema. The description fully covers what the tool reports and what it does not expose, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific read-only resource and enumerates exactly what is reported: flags, root count, and rootsConfigured boolean. It also explicitly excludes paths, credential values, identity, and mutation, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for nonsecret DEV configuration inspection and clearly rules out sensitive or mutating use cases. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or name any sibling tool for related needs.

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