Get the full version history for one product: every tracked version/cycle with its release date, EOL date, support status, and EOL Risk Score™. Use for "give me the whole EOL schedule for X".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes | Product slug or name, e.g. "postgresql". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output in detail (version/cycle, dates, status, risk score), which informs the agent about the return data. However, it does not mention potential limitations like permissions or rate limits, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.
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 consists of two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every part is useful: the first sentence defines the tool, the second provides a usage context. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return fields (version, dates, status, risk score). The tool is simple with one parameter, so the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and what it returns.
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 the schema already documents the 'product' parameter as a slug or name. The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 gets the full version history for a single product, listing specific fields (release date, EOL date, support status, EOL Risk Score™). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_eol (likely single check) and get_risk_score (single score) by focusing on the complete schedule.
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 includes a direct usage example ("give me the whole EOL schedule for X") which tells the agent when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context of siblings provides implicit 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.
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.
