MCP-Ambari-API

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only retrieval tool (implied by 'Retrieves'), uses Ambari REST API, provides detailed state information with examples (STARTED, STOPPED, etc.), and includes service configuration and component information. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but covers the core functionality well.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections ([Tool Role], [Core Functions], etc.), but contains some redundancy. The first sentence already states the purpose, and '[Tool Role]' largely repeats it. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections duplicate information that could be inferred from context. While organized, it could be more concise by eliminating repetitive elements.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, core functions, and parameter semantics. The main gap is lack of explicit behavioral constraints (like error handling or rate limits), but the output schema reduces the need for extensive return value explanation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the parameter name 'service_name' with a clear explanation ('Name of the service to check') and helpful examples (e.g., 'HDFS', 'YARN', 'HBASE'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('status information for a specific service in an Ambari cluster'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_cluster_services (which lists services) and get_service_details (which might provide more comprehensive info) by focusing specifically on real-time status retrieval.

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?

The '[Required Usage Scenarios]' section explicitly states when to use this tool: when users ask about specific service status, troubleshooting service issues, or monitoring specific service health. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_cluster_info (general cluster info) or restart_service (action tool) by focusing on status retrieval only.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.