Get the public dashboard summary
The free marketing-dashboard rollup: the network-wide host rollup (fleet count + mean uptime/latency), the hourly fleet-average p50 latency trend over the last 24h, and the top-10 providers by market share (0..1 fraction). No host list, full registry or arbitrary per-host uptime is exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint already supplied by annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a 'public' rollup, so no authentication is implied, and it precisely defines the data scope. It discloses exactly what data is included and excluded, going well beyond the annotation's read-only hint.
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 concise: a short title line followed by one dense sentence enumerating the contents and exclusions. Every phrase adds information, with no redundant 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?
The description fully covers what to expect from the tool (three data components) and what not to expect (host lists, registry, per-host uptime). Since there is no output schema, this enumeration is essential and fully sufficient for a no-parameter read-only tool.
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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.
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 retrieves the public dashboard summary and enumerates three specific data components: network-wide host rollup, hourly fleet-average p50 latency trend, and top-10 providers by market share. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating what is not exposed (no host list, full registry, or arbitrary per-host uptime), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 explicit usage context: it is a 'free marketing-dashboard rollup' for public summary data. It also gives a clear when-not by excluding host lists and per-host uptime, implying users should seek other tools for those details. This is sufficient guidance for selecting this tool over the many sibling get/list tools.
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.
