vs_servers_monitors_getList the monitors (sites) linked to a server.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "vs_servers_monitors_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Server id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the relationship that monitors are linked to a server, but does not add behavioral context such as pagination, auth requirements, or return shape. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter list endpoint.
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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and a fully documented single parameter, the description is complete enough to support correct invocation. It does not explain the return structure, but that is a minor gap for an obvious list operation and there is no output schema to reference.
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 the single parameter 'id' is already documented as 'Server id.' The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers the parameter.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('monitors (sites) linked to a server'), making the operation clear. It distinguishes the tool from generic monitor listing by scoping to a server, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as vs_servers_monitors_set or vs_monitors_list.
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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a server-scoped monitor listing through its purpose, but provides no explicit when/when-not conditions or sibling tool guidance.
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.