Retrieve a NiFi controller service's state, validation errors, and redacted properties to inspect configuration and troubleshoot issues.
One controller service: state, validation errors and properties (secrets redacted).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return contents (state, validation errors) and, importantly, that secrets are redacted — a security-relevant behavior not present in the annotations.
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 fragment with zero filler; the resource is stated before the returned fields. Terseness borders on cryptic, but every clause 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required in prose. The description names the key returned elements and the redaction behavior, leaving only the verbose toggle unexplained — a minor gap for a one-parameter read tool.
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 reported at 0%, and the description never mentions the 'verbose' parameter (which toggles full redacted JSON vs compact view) nor the service_id format. The schema's own enum-free properties carry the load, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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?
States a specific resource ('One controller service') and enumerates what it returns: state, validation errors, properties. The singular 'one' plus the service_id requirement distinguishes it from nifi_list_controller_services, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: fetching details for a single service by id. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the verbose flag, and no routing away from nifi_list_controller_services or nifi_get_processor_definition for related lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.