Find Configuration Items (CIs) lacking relationships in the CMDB to identify orphaned records. Optionally filter by CI class and limit the number of results.
Find CIs with no relationships in cmdb_rel_ci
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max orphan CIs to return (default 50) | |
| ci_class | No | CI class table (default cmdb_ci) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the table-specific scoping to cmdb_rel_ci but doesn't disclose behavior like how orphan detection works (e.g., does it consider relationship direction or only direct relationships). Still, given the annotations, it provides baseline value.
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, focused sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
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?
The tool is a simple read-only query with two optional parameters, and the schema and annotations cover the basics. However, the description lacks usage guidance, examples, or any mention of what the output looks like. It is minimally complete but leaves some ambiguity about the exact definition of 'orphan' in relation to relationship types.
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 input schema already describes both parameters (limit and ci_class) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and identifies the exact resource: CIs with no relationships in the cmdb_rel_ci table. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmdb_find_duplicates and cmdb_find_stale, which target different criteria.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternative CMDB discovery tools such as cmdb_find_duplicates or cmdb_reconcile. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.