Check a Service's public address now, from every region, and show what each got back. Changes no setting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Its Project, by name. The default Project when left out | |
| service | Yes | The Service, by name | |
| environment | No | Its Environment, by name. The Project's default Environment when left out |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them usefully by disclosing the fan-out behavior ('from every region') and the return shape ('show what each got back'), which matters since no output schema exists. 'Changes no setting' is partly a restatement of the annotations but adds an explicit no-side-effect guarantee.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, and the core behavior (live multi-region check) is front-loaded ahead of the no-side-effect note. Nothing is redundant.
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?
Parameters are fully covered by the schema and safety by annotations, but with no output schema the description should say more about what a result contains (per-region status codes, timings, failures) and about likely latency from probing every region. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding how to interpret the call.
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%, so all three parameters (project, service, environment) are already documented, including defaulting behavior. The description mentions 'a Service's public address' but adds no syntax, naming, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check a Service's public address now, from every region') and reveals the on-demand nature of the check. It implicitly separates itself from uptime_show (stored monitor config), but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 word 'now' implies an immediate, on-demand probe as opposed to reading stored configuration, which weakly signals when to use it over uptime_show. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. service must be deployed and publicly reachable), and no alternatives named.
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.
