Retrieve a list of Fastly accounts connected to Datadog for monitoring and integration management.
List Fastly accounts.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_integrations_fastly_accounts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any constraints like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List') and resource ('Fastly accounts'), making it immediately scannable and easy to understand. Every word earns its place.
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 simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling. The context signals show low complexity (0 params, no nested objects), so the description meets basic needs but could be more informative.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no filtering or options are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
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 'List Fastly accounts' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Fastly accounts'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_fastly_account' (singular) or 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts', which would require more specificity about scope or filtering.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (including 'get_integrations_fastly_account' for a single account and 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts' for creation), there's no indication of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or appropriate contexts for this listing operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.