Identifies computer accounts that have not logged in for a specified number of days, helping admins clean up inactive accounts and maintain an accurate inventory.
Get computers that haven't logged in for specified days.
Identifies inactive computer accounts that may need cleanup.
Example:
get_stale_computers(days=90)
Helps maintain clean computer account inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to consider stale |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only identification operation ('may need cleanup' suggests the cleanup itself happens elsewhere) and specifies what constitutes staleness, but says nothing about required permissions, return volume, or pagination behavior for a potentially large account inventory.
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 core definition is front-loaded and the example is useful. The trailing sentence 'Helps maintain clean computer account inventory' largely repeats 'may need cleanup' and could be dropped without losing 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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is queried and the staleness threshold well enough. It omits what fields are returned per computer, a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 'days' parameter is already documented as 'Number of days to consider stale.' The description reinforces this with 'for specified days' and an example (days=90), matching the schema default, but adds no new semantic detail.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get computers that haven't logged in for specified days.' The resource (computer accounts) is clear and distinguishes it from the sibling get_inactive_users without naming that sibling explicitly.
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?
'Identifies inactive computer accounts that may need cleanup' implies the use case of finding accounts to clean up, and the example illustrates a typical call. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_computers or get_computer, and provides no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.