List fact ids + verification states (dismissaluk).
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": "dismissaluk_list_facts"
}
}| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (ids plus verification states), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or read-only/safety profile.
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 clause with zero filler; the domain qualifier is appended compactly. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 zero-argument read tool with no output schema, stating the returned fields (fact ids + verification states) covers the essential gap. Only minor behavioral details such as result count or ordering 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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly makes no parameter claims.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (fact ids + verification states), with the '(dismissaluk)' tag separating it from the ~30 sibling *_list_facts tools. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from dismissaluk_get_fact or dismissaluk_changes, which is the only remaining ambiguity.
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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing is stated. An agent must infer that this is an enumeration/discovery step preceding dismissaluk_get_fact from the word 'List' alone.
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.