Retrieve active Prometheus scrape targets, optionally filtered by health state or target name, to diagnose monitoring coverage and identify unreachable endpoints.
[READ] Active scrape targets, optionally filtered by health (up/down).
Args: health: Filter by health state ("up" or "down"); omit for all. target: Prometheus target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| health | No | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description adds the filtering behavior but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering for a potentially large target list. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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 summary line is front-loaded and the Args block is terse with one line per parameter. No filler text, though the '[READ]' tag duplicates the annotation and earns nothing.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should signal what comes back (target list shape, health fields, pagination). For a simple two-optional-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but the return contract is left entirely implicit.
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%, so the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it explains that health accepts only 'up' or 'down' (values absent from the schema, which is a bare anyOf string/null), and that target is a Prometheus target name from config with a default when omitted. This adds real meaning beyond the schema for both parameters.
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 and resource ('Active scrape targets') plus the optional filter, which is enough to distinguish it from write tools like reload_prometheus_config. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as target_scrape_health, dropped_targets, or target_scrape_health_analysis, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 ('omit for all') but never states when to pick this tool over siblings like dropped_targets or target_scrape_health. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided, so the agent must infer the selection from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.