get_distro_lifecycleList cached lifecycle facts for a Linux distribution.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"distro": "<distro>"
},
"name": "get_distro_lifecycle"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| distro | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral context that the data is 'cached,' implying potentially stale or non-authoritative results, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and object. It contains no unnecessary information and is appropriately brief for a simple tool.
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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value, but 'lifecycle facts' is vague and does not specify the structure or types of facts. The tool's complexity is low and annotations are strong, but the lack of clarity on the output and the cached nature leaves uncertainty for the agent.
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 0% and the description does not elaborate on the 'distro' parameter. The name suggests a Linux distribution identifier, but no format, examples, or meaning beyond the schema's pattern are provided. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cached lifecycle facts') with a clear object ('a Linux distribution'). The word 'cached' distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'check_release_lifecycle', indicating it reads stored data rather than performing a live check.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The term 'cached' implies a distinction from live checks, but no sibling tools or exclusions are mentioned. The description does not give context on when this tool should be chosen.
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.