Read filtered sections of a track’s parsed CSP config by Lua pattern to verify that included INI files were loaded and inspect their values.
Sections of the track's CSP config as CSP parsed it (INCLUDEs merged), filtered by a Lua pattern on the section name (e.g. '^MATERIAL_ADJUSTMENT'). Useful to check whether an included INI was really loaded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| values | No | ||
| pattern | No | . |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key semantics: the config is CSP's parsed view with INCLUDEs merged (not the raw INI), and filtering is on the section name. It does not say whether output is section names only or key/value pairs, what limit does when exceeded, or whether the call has any side effects.
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, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the filter semantics and a motivating use case; the inline pattern example earns its place. Slightly dense phrasing but no filler.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth. It conveys the general return content (parsed sections) but leaves the exact shape of a section, the meaning of 'values', and truncation behavior under 'limit' unspecified.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains 'pattern' well (Lua pattern matched on section name, with an example), but 'values' is completely undefined even though it likely controls whether key/value content is returned, and 'limit' is left to inference.
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 concrete resource and scope: sections of the track's CSP config as CSP parsed it, with INCLUDEs merged. It does not name a verb, but the 'as CSP parsed it' qualifier and the filter example make the result clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like ac_material_get or ac_get_state.
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?
One concrete use case is given: 'Useful to check whether an included INI was really loaded.' There is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for related config inspection (e.g. ac_restore_configs, ac_material_get), so the agent must infer the rest.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.