get_snapshotReturn a pinned, reproducible hostname for a provider to set as your client base URL, avoiding CI drift. The result regenerates byte-identically on every request.
Return the pinned, reproducible hostname for a provider — point your client's base URL at it for drift-free CI. A snapshot regenerates byte-identically on every request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does deliver a meaningful trait: the snapshot regenerates byte-identically on every request, implying idempotence and safe repeated calls. It omits auth requirements, error behavior for unsupported providers, and whether a network call is involved, so it clears the minimum without being rich.
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 tight sentences, with the core action and resource front-loaded and the CI motivation immediately following. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
The tool is simple (one enum-constrained parameter, no output schema), and the description explains what is returned (a hostname) and how to use it, which is what's needed absent an output schema. It could mention failure behavior for an unsupported provider but that is minor.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single `provider` parameter; it only says 'for a provider' without clarifying the enum's domain. The enum values (github, slack, sentry, ...) are self-explanatory provider names, which keeps this workable but not additive.
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 (return) and resource (the pinned, reproducible hostname) scoped per provider, and clarifies what the value is for. No sibling tool (orient, check_budget, list_repositories, etc.) overlaps this behavior, so the agent can select it unambiguously.
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?
"Point your client's base URL at it for drift-free CI" gives a concrete use context, effectively telling the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, which is acceptable since no sibling competes for this job.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.