Select and run one of the following Netlify read operations (read-only) get-counts, get-topk, get-timeseries, get-request-logs, get-request-detail
Select and run one of the following Netlify read operations (read-only) get-counts, get-topk, get-timeseries, get-request-logs, get-request-detail
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selectSchema | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's '(read-only)' is largely redundant. It adds no extra behavioral context such as plan-based data retention, pagination, or error modes, all of which live only in the nested schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that lists the operations compactly. It is efficient, though the inline operation list reads more like a raw enumeration than structured prose.
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 complex 5-branch discriminated-union tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it names the operations but gives no selection guidance, and key constraints (time-window limits, required params per operation) exist only inside the schema. It is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent to reconstruct intent from the union definition.
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?
There is a single top-level parameter (selectSchema) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain how to structure it or how the 'operation' discriminator routes to per-operation params. The rich nested field descriptions carry the semantics, but the description itself adds nothing to compensate for the top-level gap.
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 a specific verb+resource (Netlify read operations) and enumerates the five selectable operations, which lets an agent map the union branches to capabilities. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling readers (user/deploy/team/project/extension-services-reader), though the observability focus is implied by the name and operation set.
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?
It says only to 'select and run one of the following' — no guidance on when to use this tool, when to prefer a sibling reader, or which operation fits which question (e.g. counts vs timeseries vs logs). The agent must infer operation selection from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.