Get a host's current state
Current role, verdict, network attribution (IPs/PTR), TLS certificate and operating provider for a host. ?at= returns point-in-time state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | Point-in-time ISO 8601 instant; omitted returns current state. | |
| hostname | Yes | The host's fully-qualified hostname. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by detailing the returned data components and the optional point-in-time behavior. It adds clarity about what 'state' means without repeating the annotation.
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; the first states the core purpose, the second adds essential detail without 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 get tool, the description lists the specific fields returned, covers the optional parameter behavior, and benefits from a readOnly annotation. No output schema exists, but the field list suffices; no critical behavioral gaps remain.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds the functional note that `at` yields point-in-time state, which slightly reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic information beyond it.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'host', and enumerates the exact state fields returned (role, verdict, network attribution, TLS cert, provider), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_host_uptime and list_hosts.
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 implies this is for retrieving current host state but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. It provides helpful context (e.g., `?at=` for point-in-time) but no exclusionary guidance.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource type: participants, access points, hosts, providers, incidents, anomalies, and SLA each have their own get/list vocabulary. The main ambiguous pairs are get_provider_sla vs get_provider_sla_by_key, list_providers vs list_public_providers, and get_summary vs get_network_summary.
The overall get_/list_ verb_noun pattern is consistent and readable, and plural/singular resource names are mostly clear. There are a few exceptions: get_provider_sla and get_country_providers return collections despite using get_, and list_provider_certs is more of an aggregate posture endpoint than a simple list.
43 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and will make the tool set harder for an agent to navigate defensibly. The tools are systematically grouped, but this looks like a broad REST API surface rather than a compact, purpose-fit MCP server.
For a read-only monitoring and directory domain, the coverage is unusually complete: list/detail endpoints, histories, SLA tables, churn breakdowns, anomalies, incidents, adoption aggregates, software landscape, and quality checks are all represented. The drill-down routes such as churn totals to churn participants also avoid dead ends.
