List fact ids + verification states (taxfreeuk).
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": "taxfreeuk_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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload ('fact ids + verification states'), which is the most valuable piece of behavioral information given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result volume, or whether the list is complete.
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 zero filler; the resource and its returned fields come first. The parenthetical domain tag is slightly redundant given the tool name already contains 'taxfreeuk', but it costs little.
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?
With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does the minimum needed to call the tool correctly and names the returned fields. It is incomplete on the things that would actually matter here: result size, ordering, and pagination behavior for a zero-arg list.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with a no-argument list operation.
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') and scopes it to the taxfreeuk domain, which lets an agent separate it from the ~80 sibling *_list_facts tools for other domains and from taxfreeuk_get_fact. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer from the name that this is the discovery step preceding taxfreeuk_get_fact and that taxfreeuk_changes covers change history. No prerequisites, no mention of what to do with the returned ids.
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.