Skip to main content
Glama
r3-yamauchi

MCP Configuration Editor

by r3-yamauchi

get_server

Retrieve configuration settings for a specific MCP server to view or manage its setup details within the MCP Configuration Editor.

Instructions

特定のMCPサーバーの設定を取得する。

Args:
    name: 取得するサーバーの名前

Returns:
    Dict[str, Any]: サーバーの設定情報、またはエラー情報

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_server' tool. It loads the MCP configuration, checks if the server exists, and returns its configuration or an error with available servers.
    @mcp.tool(name="get_server")
    async def get_server(name: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """特定のMCPサーバーの設定を取得する。
    
        Args:
            name: 取得するサーバーの名前
    
        Returns:
            Dict[str, Any]: サーバーの設定情報、またはエラー情報
        """
        config = load_config()
    
        if name not in config.mcpServers:
            # サーバーが見つからない場合はエラーと利用可能なサーバーリストを返す
            logger.warning(f"Attempted to get non-existent server: {name}")
            return {"error": f"Server '{name}' not found", "available_servers": list(config.mcpServers.keys())}
    
        # サーバー情報を返す
        server = config.mcpServers[name]
        logger.debug(f"Retrieved server configuration for: {name}")
        return {"name": name, "command": server.command, "args": server.args, "env": server.env}
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('取得する' - get), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what '設定情報' (setting information) includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is appropriately sized and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by concise sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output specifics. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what '設定情報' includes would improve completeness, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds minimal semantic context for the single parameter: 'name: 取得するサーバーの名前' (name: name of the server to get). With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool has only one parameter, so the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully compensate by explaining format, constraints, or examples, keeping it at an adequate but basic level.

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's purpose: '特定のMCPサーバーの設定を取得する' (Get settings of a specific MCP server). It uses a specific verb ('取得する' - get) and resource ('MCPサーバーの設定' - MCP server settings). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_servers' or 'update_server', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_servers' (for listing all servers) or 'update_server' (for modifying settings), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/r3-yamauchi/mcp-conf-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server