Get a provider's SLA scorecards
One provider's SLA scorecards, one per trailing period (30d and 90d). key is the provider's natural key (as reported by GET /v1/providers). Empty items when the provider has no SLA data yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The provider natural key. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and the description adds behavioral detail: empty items when no SLA data exists and the structure of one scorecard per trailing period. This goes beyond the annotation, though it does not cover error responses or authentication specifics.
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 clearly structured, opening with the core verb and resource. The following sentences add distinct value: output periods, parameter source, and empty-items behavior. No filler or 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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description provides sufficient information to select and invoke it: purpose, key semantics, output structure, and no-data behavior. No output schema exists, but the description covers essential return semantics clearly.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances the parameter meaning by noting the key is the provider's natural key as reported by GET /v1/providers, adding a source reference beyond the schema's 'provider natural key'.
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 gets a provider's SLA scorecards, with specifics about trailing periods (30d and 90d). The 'by_key' designation and natural key reference make the resource and scope unambiguous, even without explicit sibling differentiation.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when retrieving SLA scorecards for a specific provider by natural key. It explains the output includes one scorecard per trailing period, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
