Identify where configuration is searched for, confirm if it was loaded, and list active and available environments to diagnose setup issues.
Report where the config is looked for, whether it was found/loaded, the active environment, and the available environments. Use this to diagnose setup issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxChars | No | Max characters in the returned text (0 = unlimited; defaults to config.maxResponseChars). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly describes what the tool reports and implies a read-only diagnostic operation through the verb 'Report'. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything' or mention side effects, but for a status-reporting tool, the described behavior is reasonably transparent.
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 sentences, zero waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by a single clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool reports and why to use it. The maxChars schema description also clarifies that output is text, covering the return format. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this correctly.
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%, with the only parameter maxChars fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable because the schema already explains the parameter's meaning and default behavior. Baseline 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource: config lookup status. It enumerates the exact output components (where config is looked for, found/loaded, active environment, available environments), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like config_init and inspect_login by framing itself as a diagnostic status report.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to diagnose setup issues.' This gives clear usage context. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so agents are not told when not to use it in favor of siblings like config_init.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.