Check whether a specific version of a software product is end-of-life (EOL). Returns lifecycle status, the EOL date, days remaining or days past EOL, and the latest release. Use this for "is X version Y still supported?" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Product slug or name, e.g. "postgresql", "nodejs", "ubuntu". | |
| version | Yes | Version/cycle, e.g. "14", "18", "20.04". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies return fields (lifecycle status, EOL date, days, latest release) but does not disclose potential limitations like data freshness or scope of products supported. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return data, followed by usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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?
With 2 simple parameters and no output schema described, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and return values. Covers the use case completely.
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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds example values (e.g., 'postgresql', '14') but does not significantly enhance 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 clearly states it checks whether a version is EOL and lists returned data. The verb 'check' and resource 'version of a software product' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_products and scan_stack.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Use this for "is X version Y still supported?" questions.' No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but guidance is clear.
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.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: checking a specific version's EOL status, retrieving full lifecycle history, scoring risk, searching products, and batch auditing. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., check_eol, get_product_lifecycle, list_products), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 5 tools covering listing, single-version check, full lifecycle retrieval, risk scoring, and batch scanning, the set is well-scoped for the domain with no unnecessary or missing pieces.
The tool set covers the essential workflows: discovering products, checking individual versions, obtaining full lifecycle data, quantifying risk, and auditing stacks. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
