Retrieve APM service properties such as OTel attributes, namespace, and metadata by service ID, with optional name filtering and result limits.
Get properties for an APM service (OTel attributes, namespace, metadata)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| service_id | Yes | APM service device ID | |
| name_filter | No | Filter by property 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the kinds of properties returned (OTel attributes, namespace, metadata), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what 'properties' means.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the exact operation and resource. The parenthetical adds valuable detail without bloating the description.
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 simple read-only lookup with well-documented schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit pointer to sibling tools for when one needs full service details or metrics, so a small gap remains.
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%, so the schema already documents service_id, limit, and name_filter fully. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and pinpoints the resource as 'properties for an APM service', further clarifying the content with the parenthetical 'OTel attributes, namespace, metadata'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trace_service, get_trace_operations, and get_trace_service_metrics.
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?
The description implies usage when one needs APM service properties rather than metrics, operations, or the service record itself. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_trace_service or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.