Retrieve the current value and metadata for any specific setting by providing its key.
Get a single setting's current value + metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Input schema / properties / key / titleRemoved value: -"Key"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"settings_getArguments"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool gets a value and metadata, but fails to mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the key does not exist.
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 very concise at one sentence, front-loading the core purpose. However, it sacrifices valuable detail that could be included without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not detailed here), the description does not need to elaborate on return values. However, with only one parameter and no parameter description, along with missing usage guidelines and behavioral context, the description falls short of being fully complete for an agent to use effectively.
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?
With 0% schema coverage for the 'key' parameter, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not explain what constitutes a valid key, how to obtain it, or any format constraints.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'a single setting', and the output 'current value + metadata'. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like settings_list (list multiple) and settings_reset (reset).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use settings_get over settings_list or other tools. There are no context signals or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.