Fetches SOAP WSDL ports, selected addresses, and operation names—or REST base URL and OpenAPI operations—to show which endpoints and actions a service exposes for testing.
SOAP: WSDL ports, selected address and operation names. REST: base_url and OpenAPI operations (if configured).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | ||
| environment | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses that output varies by protocol (WSDL ports/address/operations vs base_url/OpenAPI operations), but says nothing about missing services, environment resolution, or error behavior.
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?
It is two short clauses with no wasted words, but it is a sentence fragment with no main clause stating the tool's action, so it is terse at the cost of clarity rather than effectively front-loaded.
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 values need not be explained, yet the description spends its only content on returns. For a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, it leaves the purpose, parameter semantics, and sibling differentiation unaddressed.
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 0% and the description never mentions the required 'service' parameter or the optional 'environment' parameter. The SOAP/REST distinction hints that the service determines output shape, but neither parameter's meaning or format is clarified.
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 never states a verb or that it returns metadata about a named service; it only lists the fields returned for SOAP and REST. An agent can infer it describes a service, but it does not distinguish this from describe_operation or list_services.
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 guidance on when to use this instead of list_services, describe_operation, check_service, or the call tools. The only conditional, 'if configured,' concerns OpenAPI output, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.