Returns the latest snapshot for a monitor
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"monitorId": "<monitorId>"
},
"name": "get_snapshot"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitorId | Yes | Monitor ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about behavior: what a snapshot contains, how fresh "latest" is, or what happens when a monitor has no snapshots. Only the implied read-only nature of "Returns" is conveyed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or hedging. Every word contributes and nothing would be gained by restructuring.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the definition is minimally adequate to invoke it correctly. However, with no output schema and no explanation of what a snapshot represents, an agent cannot anticipate return values or empty-result behavior.
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?
With schema description coverage at 100% for the single monitorId parameter, the schema already documents the input. The phrase "for a monitor" loosely reinforces the parameter's role but adds no format, source, or constraint details 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?
"Returns the latest snapshot for a monitor" names a specific verb (returns) and resource (snapshot), scoped to a monitor. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from related siblings like get_monitor_health, which an agent might reasonably consider for monitor diagnostics.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_monitor_health or list_monitors, nor any prerequisites such as needing a valid monitor ID or a monitor that has produced a snapshot. The agent must infer all usage conditions.
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.