Retrieve an agent's target endpoint configuration for red-teaming. Returns endpoint URL, auth type, model type, and config, with credentials and headers redacted.
Get one agent's target-endpoint config for red-teaming (endpoint_url, endpoint_auth_type, model_type, config). Secrets (endpoint_credential, endpoint_headers) are redacted server-side and always come back empty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: secrets (endpoint_credential, endpoint_headers) are redacted server-side and always return empty. That prevents an agent misinterpreting empty fields as a config error. It does not state read-only status, permission requirements, or not-found behavior.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and the returned field list are front-loaded, and the redaction caveat follows immediately where it is most useful.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the disclosure load and does so well: it names the return fields and the redaction behavior. For a one-parameter getter this is nearly sufficient; only error/not-found semantics are 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 description coverage is 0% for the single agent_id parameter, so the description should compensate. It conveys that exactly one agent is targeted, but adds no detail on agent_id format, source, or validation; the name is largely self-explanatory, keeping this at a 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?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Get one agent's target-endpoint config') and enumerates the returned fields (endpoint_url, endpoint_auth_type, model_type, config), which distinguishes it from the generic get_agent sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_agent or get_model, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need the red-teaming endpoint configuration for a known agent. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., get_agent for general agent metadata).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.