List fact ids + verification states (vehicleuk).
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": "vehicleuk_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; 'List' implies a read-only operation and it discloses the returned payload shape (ids plus verification states). It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the full set is returned in one call, which matters for a discovery tool.
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 wasted clauses. The '(vehicleuk)' parenthetical is redundant with the tool name and the sibling list, costing a small amount of tightness.
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 output schema, the description must convey return values, and it partially does by naming ids and verification states. It leaves open whether results are complete or paginated and what a 'verification state' value looks like, which an agent would need before relying on the output.
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 baseline of 4 applies. The description does not mislead about inputs.
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 vehicleuk domain, so an agent can tell it apart from vehicleuk_get_fact. It does not explicitly contrast itself with vehicleuk_changes, which is the nearest sibling that could be confused with it.
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: nothing says to call this first to discover ids before calling vehicleuk_get_fact, and nothing excludes any alternative. The list-vs-get distinction is only inferable from the tool names, not from the description.
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.