list_actionsList every action available to the agent, including input schemas and side-effect flags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actions | Yes | Catalog entries with name, description, input schema, and side-effect flag. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "actions": {
+ "description": "Catalog entries with name, description, input schema, and side-effect flag.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "actions"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the response includes input schemas and side-effect flags, which enriches the agent's understanding of what the result contains.
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 sentence that front-loads the core function and then specifies the valuable output contents. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler language.
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?
Given zero parameters, strong safety annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete for agent decision-making. It tells the agent exactly what the tool lists and what the result includes, and no critical operational details are missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a score of 4 applies. The description avoids fabricating parameter details and correctly focuses on the output, which is the only meaningful aspect of the call.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'List every action available to the agent,' and explicitly states what the output includes (input schemas and side-effect flags). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_connections and list_events, which target specific resource categories.
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 clearly implies this tool is for discovering available actions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.