Retrieve deployment markers with historical impact for an application or across all deployments. Specify hours and optional app name to analyze changes affecting performance.
Get deployment markers and their impact
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Number of hours to look back (default: 168 = 1 week) | |
| app_name | No | Name of the application (optional, gets all deployments if not provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('get') but does not state whether it is safe/read-only, what 'impact' refers to, whether results are paginated, or what the response shape is.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It is appropriately brief, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a minimal viable purpose but leaves the meaning of 'impact' and the return format unspecified. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.
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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds no extra meaning about how hours or app_name affect the result, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('deployment markers') plus what is returned ('their impact'). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_incidents or get_alert_violations.
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 like query_nrql or entity_search. It does not state whether it is for a specific product area or how it relates to deployment-related workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.