Print environment variables in .env format or get a specific variable value, such as STELLAR_ACCOUNT or STELLAR_NETWORK, to configure Stellar CLI usage.
Print environment variables in .env format or get specific variable value
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Env variable name to get the value of (e.g., STELLAR_ACCOUNT, STELLAR_NETWORK) | |
| configDir | No | Location of config directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies read-only printing but does not state the source of the variables (.env file on disk vs process environment), whether secrets such as account keys can be exposed, or how configDir affects the output. That is a meaningful gap for a tool that may surface sensitive values.
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?
A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and the secondary mode. Nothing is wasted, though the dual-purpose phrasing is slightly compressed relative to what it needs to convey.
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 simple two-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is close to adequate. However, it leaves open whether printed variables can include secrets and where they are read from, which matters for correct and safe invocation.
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 both parameters are already documented, and the description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific verbs (print/get) and resource (environment variables) and distinguishes the two modes (bulk dump vs single value). It does not differentiate itself from any sibling, though none of the listed siblings are env-var tools, so the risk of confusion is low.
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?
The two modes are implied by the description ('or get specific variable value'), letting an agent infer that omitting 'name' dumps everything and supplying it fetches one value. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of where the variables are sourced from, and no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.