Inspect the active configuration: database target, read sink, graph. Read-only; returns no credentials.
Use this to inspect the active configuration (DATABASE_TARGET, read sink, graph).
Never returns credentials. This tool is read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states 'Never returns credentials', which is a valuable safety guarantee not present in the annotations. The read-only statement is redundant with readOnlyHint=true, but the credential non-disclosure is meaningful and helps an agent decide whether to call the tool.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the safety note is concise. It earns a high score for efficiency and clarity.
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?
The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so return format is already covered. The description mentions the scope of configuration (DATABASE_TARGET, read sink, graph) and the credential safety. For a simple read-only inspection tool, this is sufficiently complete; the only minor gap is that it doesn't state what exactly the response looks like, but the output schema handles that.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details to clarify, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than input semantics.
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 the tool's purpose: to inspect the active configuration, naming specific elements (DATABASE_TARGET, read sink, graph). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_sinks (which lists sinks) or get_server_info (server info). However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself in the sibling set.
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 provides a direct instruction to use this tool for inspecting configuration but gives no guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose instead. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_server_info, list_sinks), the lack of exclusionary or comparative context leaves the agent to infer the appropriate selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.