tomtom-get-app-configGet client configuration details, including the attribution user-agent, to ensure proper attribution in TomTom API requests.
Internal tool for apps to retrieve client configuration such as the attribution user-agent
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, lowering the burden. The description adds useful context by labeling the tool 'internal' and giving an example of returned content, going slightly beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource and includes a concrete example. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.
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 and no parameters, the description must carry the burden of indicating what the tool returns. The example ('attribution user-agent') hints at the output payload, and while the full set of config fields isn't enumerated, it is adequate for a simple no-arg config getter.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on purpose rather than parameters, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('client configuration') with a concrete example ('attribution user-agent'). It is clearly distinct from geocoding/routing/map siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other internal config tools like get-api-key or get-viz-data.
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 description implies usage for apps needing client configuration, but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. The 'Internal tool for apps' context is present, yet no exclusions or sibling comparisons are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.