Create or update a service (and its owning team). tier: 1 = user-facing or critical, 3 = background.
Create or update a service (and its owning team). tier: 1 = user-facing or critical, 3 = background.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| team | No | ||
| tier | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| internet_facing | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that the owning team may be created or updated and clarifies tier meaning, but it does not disclose update overwrite behavior, permissions, or response 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 two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the ambiguous tier field clarified immediately. There is no wasted text.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits update semantics, return expectations, and most parameter meanings, leaving the agent dependent on sparse schema titles and annotations.
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%, so the description needs to compensate. It only clarifies tier values and briefly references the owning team; it leaves name, team, description, and internet_facing semantics mostly undocumented beyond their schema titles.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Create or update a service.' It also hints at the owning-team side effect, but it does not differentiate the action from sibling tools such as set_team or other service lifecycle tools.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use upsert_service versus set_team, add_dependency, restart_service, or rollback_service. It implies a create/update operation but provides no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.