List fact ids + verification states (energyuk).
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": "energyuk_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?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does correctly convey that this is a passive enumeration returning ids and verification states. It is silent on completeness of the listing, ordering, pagination/size, and whether verification states are current or cached — gaps that matter for a zero-parameter bulk listing.
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 with no filler, and the key return content appears immediately. It is arguably over-compressed — the parenthetical domain tag adds little and the sentence could have absorbed one routing hint at no cost.
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 parameterless, annotation-free listing with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the shape of the return (ids plus verification states). It stops short of stating scope or how to act on the ids, but nothing essential for invoking the call correctly is 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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no words on inputs and focuses entirely on what comes back.
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?
States a specific verb ("List") and the exact payload returned ("fact ids + verification states"), scoped to the energyuk corpus via the parenthetical. This clearly separates it from energyuk_get_fact (single fact) and energyuk_changes (change history) among the siblings, though the bare domain tag "energyuk" is slightly opaque about what subject matter is covered.
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 explicit when-to-use statement, but the name-plus-description pairing implies the canonical discover-then-fetch flow with energyuk_get_fact. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer energyuk_changes for freshness info or when this listing would be insufficient, so usage is inferred rather than stated.
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.