Get a host's software fingerprint
The detected software of a host across ALL its roles: vendor, version and hosting per role, each with its confidence tier, first-seen timestamp and the structured evidence that fired. ?at= returns point-in-time state. Market tier.
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns results across ALL roles, includes confidence tiers, first-seen timestamps, and structured evidence, and `?at=` provides point-in-time state. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the result actually contains, beyond the annotation's safe-read signal.
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 first sentence is a strong front-loaded purpose string, and the parameter details are compact. However, the trailing 'Market tier.' fragment is unexplained and contributes no usable meaning, and the description mixes prose about output with a stray field label, making the structure slightly uneven.
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 present, the description does a good job of describing the major return components: vendor, version per role, hosting, confidence tier, first-seen timestamp, and evidence. It is missing some detail around what 'market tier' means and does not describe error behavior, but it supplies enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
The schema already fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage: hostname is the fully-qualified hostname and at is an optional ISO 8601 instant. The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond restating the at behavior already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool returns a host's software fingerprint, including per-role vendor, version, hosting, and evidence. This is distinguishable from broader host tools like get_host and from historical tools like list_host_software_history, although it does not explicitly name those sibling alternatives.
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 use case is implied: you call this when you want the current or point-in-time software fingerprint of a single host. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings such as list_host_software_history or get_software_stats, so the agent has to infer the boundary.
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.
