Lists every service across projects with its current state, helping you monitor deployments and track infrastructure status.
Every service you can see across projects, with its state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the permission-scoped visibility model ('you can see') and that state is included in each entry. It does not state that this is a non-mutating read, nor anything about ordering, pagination, or result size for an unbounded cross-project listing.
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?
A single short sentence with zero filler, scoping ('across projects') and content ('with its state') front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, so the description must fully define behavior. It covers scope and payload shape at a high level but omits result ordering and whether the list is truncated or paginated for large cross-project tenants, which matters for an unbounded list call.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to filter by; an agent need not hunt for options that do not exist.
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 (implicitly list) and resource (services) plus an important scope qualifier: 'across projects', which separates it from a project-scoped listing. 'with its state' adds what each entry contains. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_service or list_env, but the plural + cross-project scope makes the intent readable.
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 indication of when to use this instead of get_service (single service) or list_projects (project view). 'Every service you can see' implies no parameters are needed, but there is no explicit routing guidance or stated ordering/pagination expectations.
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