get_serviceRetrieves detailed status for a Cloudera service in a cluster, including state, health, health checks, and staleness, so you can inspect service health.
Detalhes de um serviço (estado, saúde, health checks, staleness).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster | Yes | ||
| service | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Detalhes' implies a read-only lookup, and the parenthetical lists the kinds of information returned (state, health, health checks, staleness), but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for unknown services, or what 'staleness' means operationally.
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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is also in Portuguese while the rest of the tool surface is English, and the parenthetical field list is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.
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 and the field enumeration is a bonus. However, for a tool with two required, entirely undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing about identifier formats and call preconditions.
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 both parameters are required, yet the description never explains what 'cluster' or 'service' should contain (name vs. id, expected format, or how they relate to the identifiers used by sibling tools). With none of the burden carried by the schema, the description should compensate but does not.
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 verb+resource ('Detalhes de um serviço') and enumerates the content covered (estado, saúde, health checks, staleness), which separates it from siblings like list_services or get_service_config. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion versus alternatives such as get_service_config, list_services, or cluster_health_summary. The only routing signal is implied by the enumerated fields, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.