get_jms_resourcesList JMS queue resources to check queue depth, consumer count, and capacity status for monitoring SAP CPI message queues.
List JMS queue resources (queue depth, consumer count, capacity status)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| select | No | ||
| orderby | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns by saying 'List'. It adds some behavioral context by naming what the returned resource view contains, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or any limitations. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, but not 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?
The description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used the brevity to add a bit more differentiation or parameter context.
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?
With no output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and a large sibling set containing similar JMS/messaging tools, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It names resource attributes but does not clarify the response shape, pagination semantics, or how this relates to get_jms_brokers/get_messaging_queues.
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%, and the description does not explain what top, skip, filter, select, or orderby mean in this context. The word 'List' implies these are list-query parameters, but the description adds no concrete detail beyond the schema's bare parameter names.
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 ('List') and the resource ('JMS queue resources') and adds useful specifics (queue depth, consumer count, capacity status). It does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like get_jms_brokers or get_messaging_queues, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_jms_brokers or get_messaging_queues. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals that would help an agent decide among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.