Statesman MCP Server

get_settings

Retrieve embedding completion metrics for Countries and Cities, active embedding and LLM parameters, and context window presets to inspect current configuration and processing status.

Instructions

Get embedding completion metrics for Countries and Cities, active embedding/LLM parameters, and context window presets.

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_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'get' implies a read, but nothing is said about whether the metrics are live or cached, whether this is expensive, or what the three distinct payload sections contain. For a no-parameter diagnostic tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned categories are listed immediately after the verb. Nothing in it is redundant with structured fields.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate for return-value structure, and it only names categories without saying how they are shaped or related. It is enough to know broadly what comes back, but not enough to interpret an 'embedding completion metric' or a 'context window preset' without a follow-up call.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there are no argument semantics the description could add. The description correctly conveys that scope is fixed and global rather than filterable.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific read operation and enumerates the three content categories returned: embedding completion metrics for Countries/Cities, active embedding/LLM parameters, and context window presets. That is far more informative than the bare name 'get_settings', though it stops short of distinguishing this from other diagnostic readers like get_platform_status or get_openapi_spec.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It provides no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call get_settings or get_platform_status first when diagnosing embedding progress.

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

Deploy Server