termix_metrics_detect_available_management_tooling_hostDetect which management tools are available on a specific host by providing its ID. Returns a list of supported options like SSH, RDP/VNC, Docker, and fleet management to determine next steps.
Detect available management tooling on a host
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the important behavioral profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this operation is safe to call. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as what tooling categories are probed, whether the host must be reachable, or what side effects might occur beyond the annotations.
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 appropriately short and front-loaded, using one sentence to communicate the operation. But because it is identical to the title, the sentence does not earn its place by adding new 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?
With no output schema, the description should say what kind of result the tool returns, such as the list of detected tooling or a compatibility report. It only says what is detected, leaving an agent unsure about output shape, failure conditions, or exactly which management tools are covered.
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 schema exposes one integer 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain that id identifies the host. The phrase 'on a host' weakly implies the id's role, but this is not enough for an agent to confidently pass the correct value without inference.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no alternative or exclusion. The intended use is only weakly implied by the phrase 'Detect available management tooling' and the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.