Check whether a runtime, database or framework release is still receiving security fixes, and what to move to. Covers about two dozen products read daily from endoflife.date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cycle | No | Release line, e.g. 3.9 or 20. Omit for every cycle. | |
| product | Yes | Product as endoflife.date spells it, e.g. python, nodejs, 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 discloses that data is read daily from endoflife.date and covers about two dozen products, which indicates freshness and scope limits, but it does not mention return format, error behavior, or what happens for unsupported products. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a clarifying scope note. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 lookup tool, the description covers purpose and scope, but it lacks explicit information about the output structure (e.g., whether it returns dates, flags, and migration target). Since there is no output schema, the description should have specified the return format or response behavior, making this a moderate gap.
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?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (product as endoflife.date spelling, cycle as release line). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a runtime, database, or framework release still receives security fixes and suggests migration targets. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource type, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_package or check_before_install by focusing on end-of-life security status and migration guidance.
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 implies usage for checking EOL status but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as runtime_deadlines or check_before_install. It gives scope context (covers about two dozen products) but lacks exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so guidance is only implied.
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.
Multiple tools overlap significantly: check_package, check_before_install, check_stack, and audit_manifest all inspect dependencies, while check_provider and provider_incidents both return incident data. Descriptions help somewhat, but the boundaries between these tools are unclear and could easily cause misselection.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some start with verbs (check_*, list_*, search_*), others are noun phrases (advisory_severity, domain_risk, provider_incidents), and one is a clause (who_can_publish). The mixed conventions reduce predictability and make it harder to infer tool behavior from the name.
With 31 tools, this is well above the 25-tool threshold for a single server, making the surface feel heavy and difficult to navigate. Even given the broad domain (packages, providers, models, registries), many tools could be consolidated or grouped more tightly.
The server provides extensive read coverage for packages, providers, models, and registries, but there are notable gaps such as no watchlist removal or model comparison, and some tools appear redundant rather than completing a lifecycle. Overall, it is broadly useful but not fully complete for its stated purpose.