Retrieve autoscale bounds, including min/max replicas and target ongoing requests, for a specified Serve application, deployment, and optional inference target.
[READ] Autoscale bounds (min/max replicas, target ongoing requests).
Args: application: Serve application name. deployment: Deployment name. target: Inference target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| deployment | Yes | ||
| application | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the config contains (min/max replica bounds, target ongoing requests) and the target-default behavior. It does not discuss failure modes, but for a simple read this is solid.
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?
Front-loaded single-line summary followed by a compact Args block; no filler sentences. The Args list necessarily restates the schema fields given zero schema documentation, so it earns its space.
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 usefully summarizes the returned bounds, and all three parameters are explained for a 2-required-param tool. Remaining gaps (error conditions, permissions) are minor for a read-only getter.
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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it does: it labels application and deployment by role and explains that target should be omitted to use the default. It adds real meaning beyond the bare property names.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (get autoscale config) and even previews the returned fields (min/max replicas, target ongoing requests). The [READ] tag distinguishes it from the sibling autoscale_config_update, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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 when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The reader must infer that this is the query counterpart to autoscale_config_update purely from naming convention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.