Inspect a declarative plugin record to review its configuration without executing it, enabling safe governance checks and informed decisions before deployment.
Inspect one declarative plugin record without executing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plugin_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the plugin is NOT executed, only inspected. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
One short sentence with the verb and object front-loaded, followed by a meaningful qualifier. No filler, redundancy, or restating of the tool name.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter tool and the description covers purpose and a key behavioral trait. But with no output schema, it doesn't indicate what 'inspect' returns (configuration, status, metadata?), and usage guidance is thin. Adequate but with a real gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives plugin_id semantic meaning by naming the target as a 'declarative plugin record,' implying the parameter identifies such a record. However, it does not explain ID format, defaults, or lookup behavior, so compensation is partial.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Inspect one declarative plugin record') and adds a clarifying negative ('without executing it'). This plainly distinguishes it from catalog.search (which searches) and policy.evaluate (which evaluates/executes).
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 phrase 'without executing it' implies this is the tool for read-only inspection rather than execution, and the readOnlyHint supports that. However, it never explicitly names sibling tools or states conditions like 'use when you need to see the record but not run it.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.