offers.listFREE read-only public offer and capability discovery. This tool never starts payment or execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of public metadata records to return. | |
| query | No | Optional bounded search text. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| free | Yes | ||
| offers | Yes | ||
| payment_started | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "free": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "offers": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "payment_started": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "offers",
+ "free",
+ "payment_started"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: 'FREE' and 'never starts payment or execution,' which directly informs an agent's safety and cost expectations. It does not cover rate limits or auth requirements, but the core behavioral promise is clear.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the critical safety guarantee. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, existing annotations, and a separate output schema, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. The only gap is sibling differentiation, which is a usage guideline concern rather than a call-correctness issue.
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 input schema fully documents both parameters (limit, query). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making a baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb+resource: 'public offer and capability discovery,' and clarifies it is read-only and free. It distinguishes itself from payment/execution tools but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like capability.search or catalog.list.
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?
Usage is implied: use this for free read-only discovery of public offers and capabilities. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as capability.search or catalog.list, and no when-not-to-use conditions.
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.