PeppolStatus

list_host_software

Read-only

List all hosts' software (Market)

Every host with open software fingerprint rows, one row per (hostname, role) with the vendor / version / hosting axes folded in (value, tier, first-seen; plus vendor variant and version kind). The evidence blob is omitted to keep the list lean — it stays on the per-host resource. Cursor-paginated on the stable (hostname, role) order; optional vendor= filter. Market tier.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size, clamped to [1, 200]. Defaults to 50.
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination cursor returned as `next_cursor` by the previous page.
`vendor`	No	Keep only rows whose open vendor axis exactly equals this value.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses aggregation behavior, exact row granularity, omitted fields, and stable pagination order. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent anticipate what the response will and will not contain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded, with essential semantics about output shape and pagination following the main action. It is slightly padded by repeating 'Market' at both the start and end, which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paginated list with no output schema, the description defines the output row shape, pagination basis, optional filtering, and what is intentionally omitted. This is sufficient for an agent to select the tool and understand its behavior without needing the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters are already documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description need not re-explain them. It adds some nuance around the stable (hostname, role) ordering that underlies the cursor, but mainly restates the vendor filter and pagination already captured by the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a concrete verb and resource ('List all hosts' software') and defines the exact row shape: one row per (hostname, role) with vendor/version/hosting axes folded in. This clearly distinguishes it from singular get_host_software and history siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: a lean, cursor-paginated aggregate list with optional vendor filtering. It also implies an alternative path by noting the evidence blob is omitted and stays on the per-host resource, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All PeppolStatus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?