Retrieve property descriptors, relationships, and supported scheduling for a NiFi processor type using its Maven group, artifact, version, and class name. Prevents misconfigured processors.
Property descriptors, relationships, and supported scheduling for one processor type.
| 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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile, so the description owes only incremental context. It adds none: no mention of where the coordinates come from, whether the definition is cached, or what happens on an unknown type.
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 tight clause with no padding. It is front-loaded with the most useful content, though its fragment form makes it less immediately parseable than a verb-led sentence would be.
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?
Because an output schema exists, return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover safety. What is still missing for a read-only lookup is how to obtain the four required coordinates and how this call relates to the list/get siblings, so the definition is only minimally complete.
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?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0% and the single nested object requires group/artifact/version/type_name, only three of which carry even brief schema descriptions. The description supplies no parameter meaning or example values to compensate, leaving the agent with an under-documented lookup key.
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 names the resource ('one processor type') and enumerates what is returned (property descriptors, relationships, scheduling), but it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it never actually states that the tool retrieves the definition. An agent can infer the purpose, but the intent is implied rather than declared.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from nifi_list_processor_types (enumerate types) or nifi_get_processor (fetch a running instance), nor that the required group/artifact/version/type_name identifiers come from those tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.