detect_cloud_drift
Cloud provider status changes — live check.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No | Optional |
driftoracle
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'live check.' It doesn't indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes external network calls, what side effects may occur, or how results are returned. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from 'live check' alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, consisting of a fragment. While concise, it under-specifies the tool's purpose and behavior; brevity at the expense of necessary information is not good conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of multiple sibling drift tools and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to convey what the tool returns, how it differs from related tools, or any usage constraints. Even for a simple tool, the description leaves too much to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes a single optional entity_id parameter with only 'Optional' as its description, and the tool description provides no additional context about its purpose. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value to parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as a live check for cloud provider status changes, which clearly relates to drift detection. However, it doesn't specify the exact scope (e.g., infrastructure configuration, availability) or distinguish it from sibling drift detection tools like detect_control_drift or detect_enterprise_drift.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency, or complementary tools, leaving the agent without decision criteria. Given the many sibling drift tools, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detection tools differentiated by drift type. Minor overlap exists between health_check and ping, as well as control_drift and evidence_drift sharing degraded controls, but descriptions provide enough context to avoid confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming pattern is mixed: detect_* tools consistently use verb_noun, but drift_history and drift_status follow noun_noun, and full_drift_scan is a compound noun. While readable, the inconsistency makes the set feel less cohesive.
Tool Count4/5
15 tools is slightly above average but justified by the broad scope of drift detection and management. Each tool earns its place, covering detection, viewing, configuration, and remediation without obvious redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full drift lifecycle: detection (multiple types), full scan, history, status, configuration, manual marking/resolving, and automated remediation. Minor gaps like lacking a single-event detail view are not critical for core workflows.