Read the /actuator/mappings endpoint of a specified Spring Boot application to list all request mappings.
Read /actuator/mappings.
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_mappings"
}
}| 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Read,' implying no side effects, but offers no details about return format, authentication needs, or potential errors.
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 short (5 words) but not wasteful. However, it is under-specified for a tool with siblings and a parameter, so conciseness comes at the cost of clarity.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is too minimal. It lacks explanation of what mappings are and the purpose of the 'application' parameter, making it insufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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 only parameter 'application' is not described in the description, and the input schema provides no help (0% description coverage). The description adds no meaning to this 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 states the tool reads '/actuator/mappings', clearly indicating the resource and action. However, it does not explain what 'mappings' are (e.g., request mappings) and lacks differentiation from many similar actuator endpoint tools among siblings.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_rest_controllers or list_endpoints. Given the sibling list includes many actuator endpoints, usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.