tf_outputsLists Terraform/OpenTofu outputs as [name, value] pairs, redacting sensitive values to [name] only.
List Terraform/OpenTofu outputs as [name, value] pairs; a sensitive output is redacted to [name] alone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | Yes | Terraform project directory | |
| binary | No | terraform or tofu (default $TF_BINARY, else terraform) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outputs | Yes | ||
| retained | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that sensitive outputs are redacted to name-only — which changes how an agent should interpret and use the results. It doesn't cover failure modes (uninitialized project, no outputs defined), keeping it short of a 5.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the redaction clause appended where it matters. Zero filler.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still flags the sensitive-output shape change. For a two-param read-only tool this is nearly complete; only the interaction with sibling tf_* tools is left unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described and an enum on binary, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about cwd resolution or binary selection beyond what the schema and its $TF_BINARY default note already provide — baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List Terraform/OpenTofu outputs') and even sketches the return shape ([name, value] pairs). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like tf_show or tf_state_list, so an agent must infer the split, but the resource itself is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this versus tf_show, tf_state_list, or tf_plan_summary, and no mention of prerequisites (initialized project, state available). The usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.