Verify environment variables are loaded correctly and masked. Confirms Runrun.it API configuration is valid, preventing errors from misconfigured settings.
Check if environment variables are correctly loaded (MASKED)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. The parenthetical '(MASKED)' hints that secret values are redacted in the output, which is useful context, but nothing is said about whether this is a safe read, what constitutes 'correctly loaded', or what a failure signals.
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?
A single short sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The '(MASKED)' aside is slightly cryptic but does not bloat the text.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should indicate the shape of the result (boolean status, list of variables, error detail). It says only that it 'checks' something, leaving the agent unable to anticipate what it receives back.
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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.
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 (Check) and resource (environment variables loaded), so the agent knows this is a diagnostic status probe rather than an action on a resource. It is clearly distinct from the task-oriented siblings (get_task, list_tasks, get_me) without needing to name them.
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?
Usage is only implicit: the agent can infer this is for verifying env-var configuration, typically during setup or debugging. There are no sibling tools that overlap, so no explicit alternative routing is needed, but the description never states when to call it or what a bad result implies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.