get_connect_settingsRetrieve configuration and community data for Circle Connect. Specify an optional private account to select credentials.
Get Connect settings. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld. The description adds only 'Reads community data', which is consistent but vague and adds essentially nothing about auth, scope, or what open-world access means here.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is a vague filler that does not earn its place, and the overall brevity leaves the tool under-specified rather than concise.
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?
With no output schema, the description should convey what the returned settings contain, but it only says 'Reads community data'. For a settings-retrieval tool it leaves the agent without enough to know what it will get back.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional 'account' parameter and its credential-selection semantics. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, and the second sentence ('Reads community data') is too generic to clarify what 'Connect settings' actually are. It names a resource but does not distinguish this from the sibling update_connect_settings or explain what settings are retrieved.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling update_connect_settings that would be the mutating alternative. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.