ucontrol-mcp

Ucontrol Read Umap Services

ucontrol_read_umap_services

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a paginated list of uMap services from the API using page and size parameters to control the result set.

Instructions

uMap API: list services.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ucontrol_read_umap_services"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`size`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or response format. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only one short sentence and is arguably concise, but it is under-specified. The phrase 'list services' is the core, but the lack of any additional detail makes it less useful as a standalone explanation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool, the description is minimal but incomplete. It does not mention that results may be paginated (despite page/size parameters), what a 'service' is, or what the response looks like. Given the presence of many sibling tools, this description does not provide enough context for reliable selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has two parameters (page, size) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention pagination or any parameter semantics, so it fails to compensate for the lack of documentation. An agent would not know how to use page/size effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'uMap API: list services' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (services), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other resources (e.g., models, components), though it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'service'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or any context for selection. It simply states the action without mentioning alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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