get_cycleOne release cycle of a product: its latest patch version, release date, LTS/support/EOL dates and whether extended support exists. Use when you already know the major version, e.g. product=nodejs cycle=24. Answers: is Node 18 still supported? What is the newest 24.x patch?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cycle | Yes | Release cycle / major version, e.g. '24' or '3.12' | |
| product | Yes | Product slug, e.g. 'nodejs' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned data fields (latest patch, dates, support status) and framing example questions it can answer. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage context, and the third gives practical example questions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data will be returned and when to use the tool. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented with examples ('cycle' as '24' or '3.12', 'product' as 'nodejs'). The description reinforces these examples but does not add significant semantic detail beyond the 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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a single release cycle with specific fields (latest patch version, release date, LTS/support/EOL dates, extended support). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_product and list_products by focusing on release-cycle-level details and includes concrete examples.
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 the tool ('Use when you already know the major version') and provides example queries. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the intended context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing products, getting all cycles for a product, and getting a single specific cycle. The descriptions explicitly state when to use each, reducing ambiguity for agents.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_cycle, get_product, list_products. The verbs are distinct and the nouns clearly indicate the resource type, and the pattern is uniform.
With only 3 tools, the count is minimal but appropriate for a focused purpose: querying version information. It covers the essential operations (list, get all, get one) without unnecessary bloat, though it's on the low end of the ideal range.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: discover products, retrieve product cycles, and drill into a specific cycle. It lacks update/create operations, which is fine for a read-only API, but might miss advanced queries like searching for a specific version across products, though the current set covers the main use cases.