Retrieve the list of beans from a Spring Boot application's Actuator endpoint. Identify beans by application name.
Read /actuator/beans.
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": "get_beans"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention idempotency, caching, response size, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency.
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 a single, focused phrase with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core action and resource.
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?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description fails to add value beyond the endpoint path. It does not explain expected output format, pagination, error conditions, or how the application parameter affects results. The description is inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this tool.
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 input schema has one parameter ('application') with no description and 0% coverage. The description does not explain what the parameter does (e.g., filter beans for a specific application), its format, or whether it is optional. This gives the agent no guidance on how to use the parameter.
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 'Read /actuator/beans.' clearly specifies the verb (Read) and resource (Spring Actuator beans endpoint), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not elaborate on what beans are or how they relate to sibling tools, but the endpoint name itself is sufficiently distinctive.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus any of the 40+ sibling actuator tools (e.g., get_mappings, get_health_status), nor does it state prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.