List a host's software-fingerprint history
The closed (superseded) software rows for one host, newest-first, cursor-paginated. Each row is one axis transition with its evidence. Market tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, clamped to [1, 200]. Defaults to 50. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor returned as `next_cursor` by the previous page. | |
| hostname | Yes | The host's fully-qualified hostname. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the rows are closed/superseded, sorted newest-first, cursor-paginated, and each row represents one axis transition with evidence. This gives an agent meaningful context about what the call actually returns.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and useful behavioral details following. The only structural weakness is the abrupt 'Market tier.' fragment, which is underspecified but does not bloat the overall description.
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The description covers the essentials: one host, superseded rows, ordering, pagination, and row evidence. However, there is no output schema, and terms like 'axis transition' and 'Market tier' are vague enough that an agent may struggle to interpret the returned row contents.
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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description: limit, cursor, and hostname. The tool description mostly reinforces the pagination and one-host scope but does not add materially new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'List a host's software-fingerprint history,' and then clarifies that it returns closed/superseded rows for one host. This distinguishes it from current-state tools like get_host_software, though it leaves 'axis transition' undefined.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you need superseded software-fingerprint rows for a single host, newest-first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the routing guidance is only implied rather than fully stated.
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.
