Syncretica MCP Server

get_settings

Retrieve embedding completion metrics, active embedding and LLM parameters, and context window presets to monitor and configure Syncretica workflows.

Instructions

Get embedding completion metrics, 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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it implies a read-only inspection but never explicitly states there are no side effects, nor whether it requires any authorization. It does add useful substance by naming the three categories of data returned, which is more than the name alone conveys. For a zero-parameter read tool the residual gap is modest but real.

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 sentence with the resource and its three content groups front-loaded; every phrase carries information and there is no filler or repetition.

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, the description is the only guide to what comes back, and it only gives category labels — 'embedding completion metrics' is never specified in terms of fields or shape. For a deliberately trivial zero-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but the return content remains loosely defined.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 verb and resource ('get settings') and enumerates the three content groups returned: embedding completion metrics, active embedding/LLM parameters, and context window presets. That makes the tool's scope identifiable without opening anything else. It stops short of distinguishing this 'settings' read from nearby reads like get_platform_status or get_openapi_spec, and the mix of 'metrics' with 'settings' slightly blurs what kind of resource this is.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be selected, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many get_* siblings. An agent must infer that this is the tool for inspecting current embedding/LLM configuration and context-window presets rather than any runtime state.

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