Get a seat's SLA scorecards
One seat's SLA scorecards, one per trailing period (30d and 90d). seatId is the seat identifier (as reported by GET /v1/aps/{key} on seats[].seat_id). Empty items when the seat has no SLA data yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seatId | Yes | The seat identifier (e.g. `POP000748`). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true, safety is already disclosed. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the trailing periods (30d and 90d) and that an empty items array is returned when the seat has no SLA data. This goes beyond annotations and provides meaningful return-behavior transparency.
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 extremely concise: three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter provenance, and return behavior (trailing periods, empty items). However, it does not describe the inner structure of a scorecard (e.g., fields like score or status), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. This minor gap prevents a 5.
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 documents seatId with a precise example. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that seatId is the seat identifier as reported by `GET /v1/aps/{key}` on `seats[].seat_id`, which helps agents extract the value from another endpoint's response. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description.
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 starts with 'Get a seat's SLA scorecards', a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_seat or get_provider_sla. It further clarifies the scope by stating it returns one scorecard per trailing period (30d and 90d), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 context on when to use the tool (for a seat's SLA scorecards) and explains how to obtain the seatId via a specific endpoint, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use get_provider_sla for provider-level SLA'), so it falls short of a 5.
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.
