safe-migrations-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect_config

Parse and summarize configuration files in YAML, JSON, .env, Prisma, TOML, or text format to review settings before applying changes.

Instructions

Parse and summarize a config file (YAML/JSON/.env/Prisma/TOML/text).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur (e.g., locking, caching), or authentication needs. 'Parse and summarize' implies reading but no explicit confirmation.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, making it efficient. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, which slightly limits its effectiveness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the description omits behavioral characteristics like error handling, output format summary, or differences in parsing across file types. The tool's simplicity (1 param) reduces the gap, but the description remains insufficient for confident invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the path parameter's expected format, location, or constraints (e.g., relative vs absolute). The supported file types are listed but not tied to the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool parses config files and lists supported formats (YAML/JSON/.env/Prisma/TOML/text), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_schema. However, 'summarize' is somewhat vague, and the tool's exact scope could be more precise.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_schema or generate_rollback. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, must be readable).

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

Deploy Server