Reload whitelist and asset library configurations to apply updated reconnaissance scopes without restarting.
重新加载配置（白名单/资产库）
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": "reload-config"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the action name. It does not state whether the reload is disruptive, requires authorization, returns confirmation output, or affects existing sessions.
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 a single concise phrase with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool this is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without information about expected results, failure modes, or side effects of reloading configuration. The description is minimally usable but incomplete.
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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is vacuously 100%, so there are no parameter details the description must compensate for. The baseline of 4 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('reload') and a concrete resource ('configuration', further qualified as whitelist/asset library). This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling scan/search/sync tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling it is not.
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?
No guidance is given about when this tool should be invoked versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or triggering conditions mentioned. An agent must infer that reloading config is appropriate after configuration changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.