Retrieve tenant deployment-service settings for default method and compose, Kubernetes, or GitOps knobs. Read-only access to view current deployment configuration.
Read tenant deployment-service settings (default method, compose/k8s/gitops knobs). Read-only — configure GitOps/kube in Admin UI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Read-only', which is a key trait, and clarifies that configuration happens elsewhere. However, it doesn't describe error behavior, output format, or any side effects beyond being read-only. For a zero-parameter get, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 two sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only note is placed immediately after. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and structured.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it states what is read and that it's read-only. It doesn't detail the return fields, but the mention of 'default method, compose/k8s/gitops knobs' gives an agent a reasonable expectation. It is distinct from the status sibling and sufficient for correct invocation.
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 has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details. It correctly focuses on the resource and scope.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('tenant deployment-service settings'), and specifies the content ('default method, compose/k8s/gitops knobs'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'yaaif_deployment_settings_status' which likely reports status rather than settings.
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 provides clear context: it is read-only and configuration should be done via Admin UI. This tells the agent when to use this tool (for reading only) and implicitly that alternatives (like configuration tools) exist, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools for configuration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.