list_compliance_checksList compliance checks. List the caller member's compliance cases using limit and cursor; returns cases and next_cursor for pagination. 列出合规办理。用 limit 和 cursor 列出本成员的合规办理；返回办理列表及下一页 next_cursor。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it limits results to the caller member's compliance cases and explains pagination via cases plus next_cursor.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action and return behavior. The bilingual duplication is unnecessary for an agent but does not obscure the content.
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 usefully states that cases and next_cursor are returned. Annotations cover safety traits, and the low-complexity two-parameter schema is mostly adequate, though limit details and sibling routing guidance are missing.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters and explains that cursor is for pagination, but it does not explain limit semantics, defaults, bounds (max 100), or cursor format.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List compliance checks') and clarifies the scope as the caller member's compliance cases. It is clear against a generic sibling, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_compliance_check or request_compliance_check.
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 listing use case is implied by 'List' and the scope is stated as the caller member's cases. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_compliance_check or request_compliance_check.
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.