列出全部合规条目的标题清单。
Args:
cluster: 可选，按集群过滤。可选值 genai-interim(生成式AI暂行办法) /
ai-content-label(AI生成合成内容标识) / deep-synthesis(深度合成) /
algo-recommendation(算法推荐与备案) / filing-practice(备案实操)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating the tool lists all compliance-entry titles and by spelling out the cluster filter values, which goes beyond the annotation metadata without contradicting it.
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 compact: one clear purpose sentence plus a tight Args block. Every line adds either the tool's outcome or the parameter vocabulary, and there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
This is a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It supplies the filter domain and scope needed to invoke the tool correctly; a brief pointer to sibling tools would improve it but is not essential here.
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%, so the description must compensate for the sole parameter. It explains that cluster filters by cluster and enumerates all meaningful allowed values with Chinese labels. It could be more explicit that an empty default means 'no filtering', but the optional tag plus default value make this reasonably clear.
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 clearly states the action ('列出') and resource ('全部合规条目的标题清单'), so an agent knows this tool returns a list of compliance-entry titles. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_compliance or get_requirement, so it stops 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?
The only usage hint is that cluster is an optional filter with named values. There is no guidance about when to choose list_topics versus search_compliance, get_requirement, or other sibling tools, and no when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.