List LogicMonitor Service Insight business services, including APM trace services, to identify and filter by name or limit results.
List Service Insight business services (deviceType 6 devices, including APM trace services)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| name_filter | No | Filter by service name (substring match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping detail (deviceType 6, APM trace services) but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, or result size limits beyond the schema's default value.
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 concise sentence with a clear leading verb and no filler. Every word earns its place, and the domain qualifier is compactly integrated.
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?
For a straightforward read-only list operation with two optional, fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only notable omission is an explicit pointer to the overlapping get_trace_services sibling, which would improve routing.
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 100%: both limit and name_filter are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline for fully documented parameters.
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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('List Service Insight business services') and adds scope detail ('deviceType 6 devices, including APM trace services'). It is clear enough to distinguish from get_service (single service) and get_service_groups, though it does not explicitly clarify its relationship to the similarly named get_trace_services sibling.
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 such as get_trace_services or get_service. The phrase 'including APM trace services' hints at coverage but does not state exclusions or route agents to a more specialized sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.