Read the auto-configuration conditions report for a Spring Boot application via its Actuator endpoint.
Read /actuator/conditions.
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_conditions"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The single-word 'Read' implies a safe operation but offers no further insight into response format or data scope.
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 extremely brief (3 words), which is concise but at the expense of usability. It front-loads the action but lacks sufficient detail. A good conciseness balance would include essential context without verbosity.
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 simple read operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description could still be more complete. It fails to explain what the endpoint returns, when it is appropriate to call, or how the parameter affects results. The tool is underspecified for an agent to use effectively.
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 defines one parameter ('application'), but the description does not explain its purpose, format, or whether it is optional. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('/actuator/conditions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not elaborate on what 'conditions' are in Spring Actuator context, nor does it distinguish it from sibling actuator tools. It is specific but minimal.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to consider alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the large sibling list, this lack of guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.