Retrieves the current OpenCode configuration for a target project directory, defaulting to the server default project, so you can inspect settings before making changes.
Get the current opencode configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether it returns merged/effective config versus raw files, or what a caller should expect. It adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the verb.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, well matched to a trivial single-parameter getter. It is efficient rather than padded, though it is thin enough that no extra structure was needed.
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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and scope ('current'). It omits what the returned configuration contains or how it is scoped, which an agent might need to interpret results 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?
The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the 'defaults to the server default project' note, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format or scope detail about the directory parameter beyond what the schema already documents.
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 a specific verb+resource combination ('Get the current opencode configuration'), so the agent knows this reads configuration state. However, it does not differentiate from the adjacent opencode_config_update or opencode_config_providers siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as opencode_config_update or opencode_config_providers. Only the faintest implied usage ('current' suggests reading live state) is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.