Detect stale entity snapshots that report zero observations despite existing data. Get health status and stale count, or automatically recompute them.
Check for stale entity snapshots (snapshots with observation_count=0 but observations exist). Returns health status and count of stale snapshots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auto_fix | No | If true, automatically recompute stale snapshots (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.0v0.14.0v0.12.1v0.11.0v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the check logic and auto_fix action, but does not explain what recompute entails (e.g., permissions, side effects) or return details like health status format.
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 sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose and key parameter are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 no output schema and one optional parameter, the description sufficiently explains purpose and auto_fix. However, it could explicitly state the return type (e.g., a JSON object with 'stale_count'), but overall it's adequate.
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 coverage is 100% and the description adds meaning by explaining auto_fix default and effect. The description goes beyond schema by clarifying the conditional recompute behavior.
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 tool checks for stale entity snapshots, defines the condition (observation_count=0 with existing observations), and specifies outputs (health status and count). It uses specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from unrelated tools.
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 implies usage for monitoring snapshot health, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools or provide exclusions. No guidance on alternatives like other health checks is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.