Get application settings by key to retrieve specific configuration values from your Baasix backend.
Get application settings
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "baasix_get_settings"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Specific setting key to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool name and provides no detail about read-only behavior, default return behavior when the key is omitted, error handling, or response format.
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 three words with no filler and is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though it could have used the space to add one or two clarifying details.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional, fully documented parameter, so a minimal description is partially acceptable. However, the behavior when the key is omitted or invalid is not stated, and since there is no output schema, the agent is left without enough detail to fully predict the result.
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 input schema fully describes the only parameter ('key'), with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline applies. The description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('application settings'), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like baasix_update_settings or baasix_server_info, but the resource is distinct enough to be recognized as a settings retrieval tool.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as baasix_update_settings or baasix_get_schema. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.