List fact ids + verification states (selfemployuk).
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": "selfemployuk_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 the most important behavioral fact for an output-schema-less tool, but says nothing about ordering, volume, pagination, or whether the list is the full corpus.
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 redundant wording or filler. Everything present is load-bearing, though the parenthetical domain tag is slightly redundant with the tool-name prefix.
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-param list tool with no output schema, the description should more fully characterize the returned collection. It names the fields returned but leaves volume, ordering, and filtering behavior unexplained.
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 semantics to explain and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
A specific verb (List) and resource (fact ids + verification states) scoped to the selfemployuk domain. It is clearly a lister rather than a detail-fetcher, though it never names selfemployuk_get_fact to sharpen the contrast.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over selfemployuk_get_fact for a single fact, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the role from the name 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.