pipeline-doctor

list_failure_patterns

Lists known failure patterns from the knowledge base, optionally filtered to a single service, so agents can identify supported root causes before diagnosing pipeline issues.

Instructions

List the knowledge-base failure patterns, optionally for one service.

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": "list_failure_patterns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`service`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only retrieval, but nothing is said about whether results are paginated, how many patterns are returned, or whether any permissions are needed; the presence of an output schema covers the return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the guidance gaps noted in other dimensions.

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 one-optional-parameter listing tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does and what the parameter scopes. What is missing is how this retrieval relates to the diagnose_* siblings, but the core call decision is supported.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'service' parameter has no schema-level description, so the description's 'optionally for one service' is the only signal that the parameter is an optional filter. It still does not clarify the expected service identifier format or whether matching is exact.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the knowledge-base failure patterns', with an optional scope qualifier. An agent can tell this is a retrieval tool distinct from the sibling diagnose_* action tools, though the description never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage signal is 'optionally for one service', which describes the filter rather than when to call the tool. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over diagnose_incident or the other diagnose_* siblings, nor any prerequisite or when-not condition.

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

Deploy Server