nagios_service_status_toolQuery Nagios Core for the current status of a specific service on a host by supplying the hostname and service description.
Get the current status of a specific service on a host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host_name | Yes | The Nagios hostname. | |
| service_description | Yes | The service description (e.g., 'HTTPS crunchtools.com'). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / host_name / maxLengthAdded value: +255Input schema / properties / host_name / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / service_description / maxLengthAdded value: +255Input schema / properties / service_description / minLengthAdded value: +1v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's burden is lighter. The word 'current' hints that the value is fetched live rather than cached, but nothing is said about latency, polling frequency, or freshness beyond that single adjective.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy, well matched to a two-parameter read tool. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which is a completeness concern rather than a conciseness one.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers both inputs. What is missing is routing context among the many Nagios siblings, particularly the host-status tool, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema with format hints (maxLength 255, example service description). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') plus a precise resource ('current status of a specific service on a host'), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the close sibling nagios_host_status_tool, which is the most likely confusion point.
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?
Usage is only implied by the tool's nature: call it when you need one service's status. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when to prefer nagios_host_status_tool or nagios_current_problems_tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.