Lists distinct service.name values across recorded metrics and sorts them alphabetically, helping you identify which services report metric instruments.
Distinct service.name values across the recorded instruments. Sorted alphabetically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: results are sorted alphabetically. It does not describe return shape, empty-result behavior, or any scoping/pagination behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, both front-loaded with the essential output description and ordering. No filler or repetition; every phrase contributes information.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent exactly what values come back and how they are ordered. The only minor gap is that it relies on 'recorded instruments' rather than explicitly naming metrics.
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?
This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the schema is empty as expected for a pure enumeration endpoint.
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 states the resource precisely: distinct service.name values, with the source identified as 'recorded instruments' and the output ordering given. It is distinguishable from list_log_services and list_trace_services by its instrument/metric framing, though it never explicitly says 'metrics' and omits a leading verb.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite context, and no routing to alternatives such as list_log_services, list_trace_services, or query_metric_points. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and resource description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.