list_docsList HeroX AirDomes reference documents (company and product overview, agent skill, auth/access policy) with IDs and URLs.
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": "list_docs"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value by scoping the result set (only the three reference document classes) and naming the returned fields, but says nothing about ordering, result size, or whether the set is static.
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 filler; the parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item adds real scope information. Slightly harder to scan than a plain one-clause statement, but nothing is wasted.
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, non-destructive lister with no output schema, the description covers both what is listed and what fields come back (IDs and URLs), which is the essential information. Remaining gaps, ordering and result set size, are minor for a fixed reference-document catalog.
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 and the object schema forbids additional properties, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing or misleading.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus a concrete resource (HeroX AirDomes reference documents) and an enumeration of the document categories returned. It also states the returned fields (IDs and URLs), which distinguishes it from read_doc/read_blog_post, though it never names the sibling list/search tools it is not.
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 sentence addresses when to use this instead of search_docs or read_doc, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The discovery-then-read pattern is only weakly implied by the mention of IDs and URLs, and with three sibling tools in the same domain that is not enough guidance.
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.