List available data sources and configured domains. Call this to discover which services and domains are available before querying. If exactly one domain exists, use it automatically without asking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Domain to list sources for. If omitted, lists all configured sources. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tool lists sources and configured domains, and includes the automatic behavior with single domain. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description consists of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with purpose.
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 should help the agent understand the return format. It says 'list available data sources and configured domains,' which implies a list, but does not specify details like structure or field names. However, the tool is simple and the guidance on automatic behavior completes the context. Slightly lacking in return detail, but overall sufficient.
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 input schema has one optional parameter 'domain' with a description. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3; no extra value is added.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists available data sources and configured domains, with a specific verb and resource. It also provides usage context by saying 'call this to discover services and domains before querying,' distinguishing it from unrelated siblings like get_current_date, marketing_data, and research.
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?
The description explicitly tells the agent to use this tool before querying to discover services and domains. It also provides a rule: if exactly one domain exists, use it automatically without asking. This is clear, actionable guidance for when and how to use the tool.
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.