Fetch information about a specific service from the SHM billing panel using service_id; supports optional user_id and pagination via limit and offset.
GET /service Информация об услуге Тег: Услуги Спека: user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Макс. кол-во записей | |
| offset | No | Смещение (пропуск записей) | |
| user_id | No | admin acts on behalf of this user | |
| service_id | Yes | id услуги |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies a read via 'GET'. It says nothing about authentication requirements, ownership/access scope, what the response contains, or how pagination interacts with the required service_id.
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?
It is short and front-loads the endpoint, but the trailing 'Тег/Спека' metadata lines consume space without helping an agent decide or invoke, and the whole description is a fragment rather than a purposeful statement.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain the returned resource shape or the meaning of the required service_id beyond the schema string. Combined with mixed-language content, it leaves real gaps for an 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 description coverage is 100% (limit, offset, user_id, service_id each documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.
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 conveys 'GET /service' plus 'Информация об услуге' (information about a service), so the verb and resource are identifiable, but it is largely a restatement of the endpoint path and does not distinguish this tool from the many neighboring user_service_* / user_user_service_get variants.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as user_user_service_get or user_service_order_get, nor any stated preconditions. The only implicit signal is the GET verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.