Verify a service follows standard observability conventions, including canonical names, required spans, and attribute keys. Use it to catch naming and tracing inconsistencies early.
Verify a service uses standard observability conventions: canonical names, required spans, attribute keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | Service to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only check but never states whether it is safe/non-mutating, what permissions are required, whether results are pass/fail versus a violation list, or any rate limits. Only the surface scope of the check is disclosed.
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 the verb and scope leading, and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the behavioral context it omits.
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 validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the nature of the result (pass/fail, violation list) and any auth needs. None of that is present, leaving the agent under-informed about what to expect.
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% for the single 'service' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or identification detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (Verify) and resource (a service) and names the concrete checks performed: canonical names, required spans, attribute keys. This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like check_config_health, though it never explicitly names that sibling.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as check_config_health or diagnose_issue. The agent must infer the appropriate context on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.