Inspect service bindings to see exposed services, versions, and underlying entities before publishing or unpublishing. Ensures you understand current exposure.
What a service binding exposes: its services, versions and the entities behind them - read before publishing or unpublishing one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | The index of the service binding. | |
| binding | Yes | The service binding. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the content returned (services, versions, entities) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Since annotations carry the safety burden, the description's added value is moderate, aligning with the baseline for annotated read-only tools.
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, information-dense sentence. The core purpose is front-loaded ('What a service binding exposes'), followed by the usage caveat ('read before publishing or unpublishing one'). There is zero fluff or redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and the usage context. The only minor gap is the exact structure of the return data, but since there is no output schema and the description hints at the content, it is adequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema (index and binding). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints for these parameters, and given the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage, no extra points are warranted.
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 clearly states the tool's function: revealing what a service binding exposes (services, versions, entities). It uses a specific noun ('service binding') and a distinct purpose, differentiating it from sibling tools like publishServiceBinding and unPublishServiceBinding without needing the schema.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'read before publishing or unpublishing one.' This tells an agent exactly when to invoke this tool (as a prerequisite to mutation) and by implication when not to (when intending to publish/unpublish directly). It also establishes it as a read-only inspection step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.