aicom_describe_serviceGet the full description, input shape, method label, and a worked example for one service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service_id | Yes | The service id, e.g. 'json_repair' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read-only information retrieval tool, it is adequate but could be more explicit about safety.
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 of 14 words. It efficiently conveys the purpose without any extraneous content.
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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (full description, input shape, method label, worked example). It does not cover failure modes or service existence checks, but for a simple info tool it is reasonably complete.
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% and the schema already provides an example for service_id. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'one service,' so it meets the baseline without surpassing it.
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 provides the full description, input shape, method label, and a worked example for a single service. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aicom_list_services (which lists services) and aicom_run_service (which runs them).
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 obtaining service details but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like aicom_list_services. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.