Lists a service's database read replicas and indicates whether each follows the primary, helping verify replication status.
A database's read replicas and whether they follow it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | Service id or `project.service`, e.g. `shop.api` |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't confirm the operation is read-only, doesn't say whether output is paginated or ordered, and doesn't mention permissions or what happens for a service with no replicas. Only the implicit 'replicas are read-only followers' notion is conveyed.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency — key facts (verb, return contents, scope) are absent. Short, but not front-loaded with actionable 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?
This is a simple one-parameter read tool, so requirements are modest, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should explain what is returned (replica identities and their follow/health status) and any ordering or limits. It leaves the agent without enough to know what the call yields.
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?
There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with an example format ('shop.api') already in the schema. The description adds no meaning about the service identifier beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 identifies the resource ('read replicas') and adds that replication/follow status is included, which the name alone doesn't convey. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it reads as a caption rather than a statement of what the tool does (list vs. inspect). An agent can infer listing from the name, but the description itself never says it.
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 on when to call this versus sibling tools such as add_replica, promote_replica, get_service, or list_services. There are no stated prerequisites (e.g. that a service id is needed) and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer all routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed