check_release_supportGiven a product and version, return whether that release line is supported, in security-fix-only maintenance, or past end of life, with the dates behind the answer and the cycles you could upgrade into. A line with no published end-of-life returns undetermined rather than supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | ||
| version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds clear expectations about outputs and the no-EOL case. No hidden side effects or contradictions are present.
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 tight sentences with no filler, and the important edge-case behavior is clearly included. It is well-structured for quick agent parsing.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description covers the core outcome, the supporting details returned, and the ambiguous no-EOL case. This is sufficient for correct invocation in most contexts.
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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, and the description only repeats 'product and version' without defining accepted formats, examples, or constraints. With low schema coverage, this leaves the agent to guess what values are valid.
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?
Clearly states the tool's function: given a product and version, it returns the support lifecycle status with supporting details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on vulnerability lookup or general software questions.
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 explains the tool's behavior and the undetermined edge case, so an agent can infer when it applies. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like check_security_exposure or lookup_vulnerability, leaving some selection inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.