analyze_invocationAnalyze provider invocations and their coupling with adjacent tools and outputs to prepare migration plans. Identify dependencies before code changes.
Analyze provider invocation and adjacent tool/output couplings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| target_platform | No | ||
| application_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'analyze', which implies read-only but does not state whether it has side effects, requires special permissions, or what side effects might occur. No behavioral detail beyond the verb is offered.
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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of uselessness. This is not effective conciseness; it is a lack of necessary content. The single sentence does not front-load any actionable 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is completely inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations. It does not explain the tool's purpose, when to use it, parameter meaning, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with no basis for correct invocation.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (target, target_platform, application_path). The mention of 'provider invocation' and 'couplings' does not map to any parameter semantics, so the agent has no clue how to fill them.
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 a verb 'analyze' and a resource 'provider invocation and adjacent tool/output couplings', but this is vague and does not clarify what specific analysis is performed. It does not distinguish from sibling analysis tools like analyze_prompt or analyze_regressions, and the term 'couplings' is undefined.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any of the 32 siblings. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name and vague description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.