List the seven recall registers CarsMultiverse keeps, with their authorities and index pages.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_registers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful context — that there are exactly seven registers and that entries include authorities and index pages — and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm side-effect freedom, describe return format, or address any error or pagination behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence: the verb and object appear immediately, and every subsequent phrase ('seven', 'authorities and index pages') adds concrete information. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted verbiage.
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 trivial 0-parameter enumeration tool, the description states exactly what will be returned, which is the main thing an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps are the unelaborated meaning of 'index pages' and the lack of an output schema, but the read-only nature is reasonably implied by 'List'.
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 declares zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no arguments for the description to explain, and the input schema already fully covers the empty parameter set. The description instead usefully describes the output domain rather than 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a bounded resource ('the seven recall registers CarsMultiverse keeps'), and it states the returned content ('authorities and index pages'). The operation is clearly a fixed enumeration, which an agent can distinguish from get_recall_notice (single notice retrieval) and search_recalls (query-based search) without opening either sibling's schema.
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 given on when to use this tool versus get_recall_notice or search_recalls, and no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are mentioned. The only sense of 'when' must be inferred from the purpose statement, which is a minimal and implicit signal.
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.