easyeda-mcp-pro

Get server config

easyeda_get_server_config

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the EasyEDA MCP server's redacted configuration to review settings safely while ensuring secrets are never exposed.

Instructions

Return safe (redacted) server configuration. Secrets are never exposed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`include_flags`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`flags`	No
`profile`	Yes
`node_env`	Yes
`log_level`	Yes
`transport`	Yes
`bridge_host`	Yes
`bridge_port`	Yes
`feature_maturity`	Yes
`mcp_protocol_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.19.2Oct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedOutput schema / properties / feature_maturity

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "configured": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "effective": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "maturity": {
+        "enum": [
+          "implemented",
+          "experimental",
+          "reserved"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "note": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "maturity",
+      "configured",
+      "effective",
+      "note"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "node_env",
-  "log_level",
-  "profile",
-  "transport",
-  "bridge_host",
-  "bridge_port",
-  "mcp_protocol_version"
-]New value: +[
+  "node_env",
+  "log_level",
+  "profile",
+  "transport",
+  "bridge_host",
+  "bridge_port",
+  "mcp_protocol_version",
+  "feature_maturity"
+]

First observedv0.19.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral guarantee beyond that ('secrets are never exposed', output is redacted), which is useful for deciding whether the result is safe to surface. However, it says nothing about the shape or size of the config returned, or whether any config classes are withheld entirely.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the most important fact (redaction) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why the parameter gap above goes unexplained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described here, and the read-only nature is carried by annotations. The remaining gaps are the undocumented 'include_flags' parameter and the absence of any routing versus sibling introspection tools, leaving this definition only minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'include_flags' (boolean, default false) is never explained in the description. An agent cannot tell from either source what flags would be included or how the output changes when it is set. With one undocumented parameter, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return server configuration') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('safe/redacted'). It is clear enough to act on, but it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as get_feature_flags, get_capabilities, or get_tool_profiles, which also read server-side metadata.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not say under which circumstances an agent should call this instead of the adjacent introspection tools, nor does it state any prerequisites. The only hint of applicability is the implicit 'debugging/inspection' framing.

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

Deploy Server