get_zone_settingFetch a single Cloudflare zone setting by name to read its current value or configuration for inspection.
Fetch a single zone setting by name Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private profile label. Account/zone defaults route inputs; token permissions remain provider controlled. | |
| zone_id | No | ||
| setting_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description's "Read operation" merely restates readOnlyHint and adds no new behavioral context such as auth/permission needs, whether zone_id is required, or what happens when the setting has never been configured.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, so it is easy to scan, but the second line "Read operation" is pure redundancy against the annotations and earns no place in the text.
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 tool with three parameters (one required) at 33% schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits how zone_id and setting_id interact and what the returned setting looks like. An agent has to guess at the lookup scope.
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 only 33%, so the description carries the burden of clarifying parameters, but it does not. It says the setting is fetched "by name" while the required parameter is setting_id (a setting name), and it says nothing about the account or zone_id scoping parameters.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch a single zone setting") and scopes it to one item, so an agent can distinguish it from list_zones or get_zone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling update_zone_setting or explain the relationship to get_zone.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus its obvious sibling update_zone_setting, nor any prerequisite or context. The only framing is the bare "Read operation" tag, which is implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.