Retrieve the current BIRD SQL configuration and status to verify setup and monitor system health.
View BIRD SQL configuration and status.
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": "get_bird_config"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming a read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'View,' which is consistent. It does not disclose any potential side effects or authentication needs, but for a read-only tool, this is minimal yet acceptable.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'View,' and contains no redundant words. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only, parameterless tool without an output schema, the description suffices by stating the purpose. It could optionally mention the output format, but it is not necessary for correctness.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description need not explain parameters, so it adequately covers the semantic gap by stating the action without parameter details.
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 clearly states 'View BIRD SQL configuration and status.' It uses a specific verb ('View') and identifies the resource ('BIRD SQL configuration and status'). Among sibling tools, none target BIRD configuration, so it effectively distinguishes its purpose.
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?
The description implies usage for viewing configuration without specifying when not to use it or alternatives. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of related siblings, the context is clear, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.