Skip to main content
Glama

nucleo-settings-get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves current Nucleo settings for editor, performance, CSS purge mode, font subsets, quality rules, native-form captcha, user onboarding, and detected integrations.

Instructions

Nucleo settings: editor, performance, CSS purge mode, font subsets, quality rules, captcha of the native forms (provider, siteKey, secretSet, threshold), onboarding state of the current user, and the detected integrations.

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": "nucleo-settings-get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds useful scope information, notably that captcha exposes a 'secretSet' flag rather than the secret itself, which tells the agent what it can safely inspect. It says nothing about permissions, caching, or global-vs-per-user scope of the settings returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with an itemized list, no filler and no repetition of the title. The parenthetical on captcha fields is compact and informative rather than verbose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and the enumeration of setting groups largely does that. A minor gap is that it does not clarify whether all groups are always present or whether any values are redacted beyond the captcha secret.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-wise the description needs to explain. It correctly adds no misleading parameter guidance.

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 noun phrase 'Nucleo settings' plus an enumeration of the specific settings groups (editor, performance, CSS purge mode, font subsets, quality rules, captcha, onboarding state, detected integrations) makes clear what the tool returns, and the get/set split with nucleo-settings-set is evident from the names. It stops short of a verb like 'Retrieves', but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus nucleo-settings-set or other settings-adjacent tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The read-only intent is only inferable from the name and the enumerated contents.

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