config_getFetches the current effective configuration for v8help-mcp, showing embedder, search backend, bin directory, and books.
Текущие настройки (эффективный конфиг): эмбеддер, search.backend, bin_dir, книги.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one meaningful trait beyond the schema: that this is the *effective* (merged/computed) configuration rather than raw stored values. However, it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or freshness/caching 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?
A single short sentence with no waste, front-loading the purpose and then listing the covered fields. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but every token earns its place for a zero-argument getter.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose, and for a zero-param read tool the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is that key fields are listed redundantly rather than using that space for usage context or the relationship to config_set.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, but there is nothing for it to clarify on that dimension.
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: it returns the current (effective) settings and enumerates the key sections covered (embedder, search.backend, bin_dir, books). An agent can tell it is a read-only config reader, but it does not explicitly name the sibling config_set as its write counterpart, so it is clear without full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named even though config_set sits in the sibling list as the obvious counterpart. The read-vs-write intent is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.