Show the configured evidence boundary, retrieval mode, and write policy to confirm which policy-gated files are searchable and what writes are permitted.
Show the configured evidence boundary, retrieval mode, and write policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'show' indicates a non-destructive read operation, which is a useful behavioral cue. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as authentication requirements, data source details, or what happens if no configuration exists. For a zero-parameter status tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Show') and specifically lists the three configuration aspects covered. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: it states what information is shown. It could ideally clarify the output format or whether it returns a summary, but for a simple status tool, the description is nearly complete. Minor gap is absence of return-value details.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. Per baseline, 0 params rate 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to describe.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: to show configured evidence boundary, retrieval mode, and write policy. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('configured evidence...'), and it distinguishes from siblings like evidence_read (which likely reads evidence content) and evidence_create_note (which creates notes).
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?
The description implies when to use it (when needing to inspect current configuration) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so usage context is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.