tailscale-blade-mcp

ts_info

Review Tailscale tailnet health: device counts, online/offline status, key expiry warnings, updates, and tailnet settings.

Instructions

Health check: device counts, online/offline, key expiry warnings, updates, tailnet settings, write gate.

Tool call template

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": "ts_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently lists the types of information returned (device counts, online/offline, etc.), indicating it's a read-only health check. It does not mention side effects, auth needs, or error cases, but for a zero-parameter tool this is acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at one line, but the use of a comma-separated list could be more readable. It is front-loaded with 'Health check' which immediately conveys purpose. Minor improvements in structure would earn a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main expected outputs. However, it does not mention that it provides a high-level summary vs. detailed data, and error conditions are omitted. Still, it is largely complete for a health check tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the description adds value by explaining what the tool does and what information it returns. Since the input schema provides no detail, the description is essential and sufficiently informative.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it's a 'Health check' and lists specific returned information (device counts, online/offline, key expiry warnings, updates, tailnet settings, write gate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like ts_devices or ts_acl, but a more explicit statement of its scope would improve clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for general health monitoring, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided, which is a gap given the number of sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.