axiorank_list_policiesList the outbound governance policies in your workspace (enabled or not), each with its tool pattern, action (allow/deny/require_approval/redact), risk threshold, priority and enabled flag. Requires the policies:read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the requirement for the `policies:read` scope and clarifies that both enabled and disabled policies are listed, which goes beyond the annotations.
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 is concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, output fields, and authentication requirement. No superfluous words.
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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the resource scope (workspace), what fields are returned, and the required scope. It is complete for this low-complexity tool.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly has no parameter-related text, achieving the baseline for 0-param tools.
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 tool lists outbound governance policies in the workspace, including enabled or disabled ones, and specifies the fields returned (tool pattern, action, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_policy (single policy) and create_policy (creating policies).
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 the tool is for listing all policies in the workspace, but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives like get_policy for a single policy or search-related tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different aspects of agent, policy, incident, and threat management with no overlap. Tools like axiorank_list_agents and axiorank_get_agent are differentiated by list vs. get, and quarantine vs. revoke serve different use cases.
All tools follow a consistent 'axiorank_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict tool names based on action and resource. No mixing of conventions or abbreviations.
With 22 tools, the server covers a comprehensive security governance domain. While slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, each tool serves a specific function and the count is justified by the breadth of features (agents, policies, incidents, scoring, verification, audit).
The tool surface covers agent and policy lifecycle (CRUD except delete), incident querying, scoring, verification, and audit. Minor gaps include missing delete operations for policies and incidents, and no way to update incident status. However, the core workflows are well-supported.