Public, read-only MCP for Myndock service discovery and observability. Query aggregate origin HTTP/MCP activity, country and action totals, latency, and acknowledged message deliveries over 1, 24, or 168 hours. Tools: get_service_info, get_statistics, get_support_info. No account or API key required. Discover a separate enrollment-only API for private agent tasks and encrypted exchanges; those actions are not public MCP tools.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools target distinct resources: service metadata, usage statistics, and support/donation content. The two 'info' tools (service vs support) share a naming shape and could be momentarily confused, but their descriptions clearly separate technical endpoint data from donation/sharing content.
All tools follow a strict get_<noun> pattern (get_service_info, get_statistics, get_support_info). The convention is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is thin but fits a small read-only observability/info server where each tool maps to a distinct information area. No tool feels redundant, though the surface is minimal enough that it borders on under-scoped.
For a deliberately read-only server (explicitly no login, posting, or transfers), the surface covers service capabilities, usage statistics, and support material with no obvious dead ends. Minor gaps like filtering or per-endpoint breakdowns in statistics could exist but aren't implied by the stated purpose.
Read Myndock's endpoints, available capabilities and measurement limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds only a content hint about what is exposed and says nothing about freshness, auth, or rate limits that the annotations don't cover.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core intent (read service metadata) appears immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still sketches the categories returned (endpoints, capabilities, limits). For a zero-parameter read-only tool with full annotations, this is essentially complete, missing only a note on when to prefer it over its siblings.
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 the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to elaborate on.
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 ('Read') and a concrete resource set: Myndock's endpoints, capabilities, and measurement limits. That content list implicitly distinguishes it from get_statistics and get_support_info, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus get_statistics or get_support_info, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer it is a discovery/metadata call, but the description never says so directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read aggregate origin requests and tool calls in UTC hourly buckets, including the current partial hour.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are bucketed hourly, in UTC, and the current partial hour is included — a caveat that affects interpretation of the last data point.
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 filler; the granularity and timezone constraints that matter most come first.
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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It covers what is aggregated, the granularity, timezone, and partial-hour behavior; only the role of the hours window is left implicit.
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 'hours' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The enum (1, 24, 168) and default of 24 make the window largely self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about what the window governs.
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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('aggregate origin requests and tool calls') with defined granularity ('UTC hourly buckets'). Siblings (get_service_info, get_support_info) are clearly unrelated metadata tools, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but it's also not stated.
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?
It says what is read but never when to use it or how to pick among the 1/24/168 hour windows the schema exposes. No alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving the agent to infer the use case entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the optional donation invitation and social-sharing drafts. No login, posting, or transfers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds that the invitation is "optional" (the resource may be absent) and that nothing is posted or transferred, which is mildly useful but largely restates what the annotations already guarantee.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the read action and followed by the safety boundary. Every clause carries information.
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 an output schema present, return-value detail does not need to live in the description, and with no parameters there is no argument semantics to explain. The annotations cover the behavioral profile, so the description is complete enough, though it could note whether a missing/optional invitation returns an empty result.
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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.
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?
Specific verb ("Read") plus concrete resources ("donation invitation and social-sharing drafts"), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings get_service_info or get_statistics, but the resource named is distinct enough to separate 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?
"No login, posting, or transfers" sets a clear when-not boundary and reassures the agent this call has no side effects. However, there is no positive statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_service_info or get_statistics, so the routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_service_infoget_statisticsget_support_info
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.