Promote a replica to primary when its original primary is lost, updating the old primary's URL variable to point to it.
Make a replica a primary when its primary is lost (admin). The old primary's URL variable then points at 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two important traits: admin privileges are required, and the old primary's URL variable is repointed as a side effect. It does not say whether the operation is reversible, whether the old primary is demoted, or whether it causes downtime.
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 zero waste; the action and precondition are front-loaded and the side effect follows logically.
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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the trigger condition, the privilege requirement, and the resulting state change. It stops short of describing failure modes or reversibility, which an agent would want for a failover operation.
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 100% and the single parameter 'service' is already fully documented including the `project.service` format. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Make a replica a primary') plus the exact triggering condition ('when its primary is lost'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like add_replica, list_replicas, and update_service.
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?
Gives a clear condition for use ('when its primary is lost'), which is the decisive selection criterion. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., versus normal failover or deploy), so it falls short of a 5.
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