list_issuersThe issuing organizations, optionally filtered by a name query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Optional page size (default 20, at most 50) | |
| query | No | Optional: part of an organization's name | |
| offset | No | Optional: the next_offset from a previous answer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional page size (default 20, at most 50)",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: the next_offset from a previous answer",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional issuer-name filter"New value: +"Optional: part of an organization's name"Input schema / properties / query / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "IBM",
+ "nursing"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a little context by defining the result as issuing organizations and noting the optional name filter, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, output shape, or rate limits; with the read-only annotation, a 3 is appropriate.
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 is a single concise phrase with the core resource and optional filter front-loaded, and there is no filler. It loses one point for being a sentence fragment rather than a complete instructional phrase.
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 simple read-only list with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is that without an output schema, it does not state the return shape or pagination behavior, which an agent would need to interpret the response confidently.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and all parameters (limit, query, offset) are documented in the input schema. The description's phrase 'filtered by a name query' mirrors the query parameter without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 identifies the resource ('issuing organizations') and the optional name-query filter, which clearly maps to the list_issuers operation. It stops short of a full verb phrase like 'Lists the issuing organizations,' and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though no sibling targets issuers.
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 guidance on when to use list_issuers versus alternatives such as search_certifications or related_certifications. The only hint is the optional name-query filter, which describes parameter behavior rather than decision context.
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.