List fact ids + verification states (flightcomp).
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": "flightcomp_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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return contents (fact ids plus verification states), which is the key behavioral fact. However, it says nothing about ordering, completeness, pagination, or whether listing is read-only and side-effect free.
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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted wording. The trailing '(flightcomp)' partially duplicates the tool name, but the description stays tight and scannable.
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-parameter list with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what comes back. It falls short of fully orienting the agent because it omits the relationship to the sibling get_fact and changes tools, which is the main thing an agent needs to sequence calls correctly.
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 the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics the description could add. Nothing here misrepresents the empty input schema.
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 resource (fact ids + verification states) scoped to the flightcomp domain, which separates it from the many identically-named lists in other domains. It does not explicitly contrast with flightcomp_get_fact or flightcomp_changes, but the returned shape (ids + states) makes its role inferable.
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 on when to use this versus flightcomp_get_fact or flightcomp_changes, and no statement that the returned ids are the inputs to get_fact. The discovery-then-fetch workflow is left entirely for the agent to infer.
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.