mcs_get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that API keys and passwords are redacted as '***' — genuinely useful security behavior an agent should know — and the verb '查看' implies a non-mutating read. It doesn't fully cover edge behaviors (e.g., behavior before first load), but for a config getter this is meaningful disclosure.

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 sentences with no redundancy: the content scope is front-loaded, followed by usage intent, with the redaction note appended in a parenthetical. Every clause 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 zero-parameter config getter, the description covers purpose, usage intent, and security disclosure. An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 of 4 applies. There is nothing the description needs to explain; schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 and resource — '查看当前 MCP Server 生效的配置' (view the currently effective MCP Server configuration) — and enumerates the contents: panel address, read/write switch, command white/blacklist, transmission method. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like mcs_list_instances (lists instances), mcs_instance_status, and mcs_reload_config (applies config).

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?

It provides clear usage context: '用于确认 Server 当前配置状态，或修改 .env 后核对是否生效' (used to confirm the current config state, or verify whether changes take effect after editing .env). This conveys when the tool is appropriate without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions — a solid context but not full when-not/alternative routing.

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