tailscale_list_service_hostsFind which devices host a specific Tailscale Service by providing its service name, so you can inspect or manage service availability across your tailnet.
List devices hosting a specific Tailscale Service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serviceName | Yes | The service name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the action itself: no details on return format, pagination, or whether results might be filtered by approval status. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some scoping context but not rich behavioral nuance.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No waste.
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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a simple single-parameter schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus other service-related tools, and provides no information about the expected output or any filtering behavior, leaving a clear gap.
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 100%, so the single parameter 'serviceName' is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'List devices hosting a specific Tailscale Service.' This is clear and distinct from siblings like tailscale_list_services (lists services) and tailscale_list_devices (lists all devices). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tailscale_get_service or tailscale_get_service_device_approval, which an agent might confuse when looking for service-related device information.
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 implies usage (list devices for a given service) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites or context about when this tool is appropriate versus others. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.