list_instancesList configured Graylog instances with detected version, message/aggregation API, and active redaction rules to verify settings.
Configured Graylog instances with detected version, the API used for messages and aggregations, and active redaction rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the tool's behavior. The description adds only output content (version, API, redaction rules) and no behavioral context such as ordering, scope, or side effects. No behavioral traits beyond the annotations are disclosed.
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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words and the resource is front-loaded. However, the fragmentary noun-phrase structure does not clearly state the action, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned by the listing. It stops short of explicitly saying the tool lists all configured instances, but the title and name fill that gap sufficiently for a simple read-only 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?
The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is self-evident.
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 specific resource (Graylog instances) but never states the action. It reads as an output summary rather than a purpose statement; the agent must infer 'list' from the tool name and title. The resource is distinct from siblings like list_streams, but the verb is missing.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description only describes the returned data, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.