Get Uptime Statistics

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'history and statistics,' implying a time-range perspective, but does not disclose details like the default hours window, whether results are aggregated, or behavior for unregistered servers. It adds minimal context beyond 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?

The description is a single, directly worded sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only operation with two parameters and no output schema, but the description is incomplete: it omits the meaning of the 'hours' parameter, does not indicate the default time range, and fails to differentiate from related monitoring tools. Given the availability of get_monitor_stats and check_* siblings, more context is needed for correct selection.

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 50%: the 'name' parameter has a minimal description ('Server name'), while 'hours' has none. The description does not explain the role of 'hours' in controlling the uptime window or any parameter-specific behavior. It adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get uptime history and statistics' with a specific verb and resource, and scopes it to 'a registered MCP server'. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_monitor_stats or check_server, which may also involve uptime or server health.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the server must be registered, but does not explain when to prefer this over get_monitor_stats, check_server, or get_dashboard. No exclusions or conditional use cases are described.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.