argocd_get_settingsRetrieve Argo CD server settings, including URL, enabled features, tracking method, and plugin names. Use full=true to get the raw API payload instead of the slim view.
Get server settings: URL, enabled features, tracking method, and plugin names.
Drops OIDC/Dex config and UI banner fields in the slim view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Return the raw API payload instead of the slim one |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing that the slim view intentionally drops OIDC/Dex config and UI banner fields, which tells the agent what data it will not receive.
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?
Two crisp sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the slim-view caveat. No filler or redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields and explains the slim/full distinction, so an agent knows what it will get. It does not cover auth requirements or failure behavior, a minor gap for a read-only 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the 'full' parameter is already described in the schema. The description nonetheless reinforces the semantics by contrasting the raw payload with the 'slim view' and the fields it omits, adding meaning beyond the schema's terse wording.
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 gives a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('server settings') and enumerates the returned fields (URL, enabled features, tracking method, plugin names). This is clearly distinct from the cluster/repo/app-oriented siblings in substance, though it never names or contrasts an alternative explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no direction on when to prefer the slim view versus setting full=true. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.