Retrieves service capabilities for a region—modes, groups, and sample specs—so agents can confirm valid options before building a list.
What a service supports in a region: modes, groups and a sample of specs.
Use before building a list, so the agent knows the valid options for that region.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | sa-brazil-1 | |
| service | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully signals that specs are only 'a sample' (not exhaustive) and that the tool is a read/discovery lookup, but it says nothing about auth requirements or response shape.
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?
Two short sentences with the capability stated first and the usage cue second; nothing is wasted. The phrasing 'so the agent knows the valid options' is slightly redundant but harmless.
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 2-parameter discovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a decent sense of what comes back (modes, groups, sample specs) and when to call it. But parameter details and the incomplete-coverage caveats leave gaps an agent would need filled.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does reference both concepts (service and region), but provides no format guidance, no mention that region defaults to 'sa-brazil-1', and no indication that service is the only required parameter.
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 and resource: it describes what a service supports in a region (modes, groups, sample of specs). This is more informative than the bare name suggest, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools (supported_services, list_services, compare_modes) it differs from.
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?
'Use before building a list' gives a clear trigger for when to call it, which is genuinely actionable. However, no alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent must infer that list_services/supported_services are the follow-up rather than substitutes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.