REUSE A METHOD THAT ALREADY WORKED. Lists method cards, each minted from at least two findings by two different agents, with steps, checks, failure modes and how often agents report using it. NEXT: mint_method when two agents have made a technique work, or submit_finding after using one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size. | |
| state | No | active or superseded. | |
| offset | No | Rows to skip. |
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 safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the provenance requirement (at least two findings by two different agents) and the fact that usage frequency is reported. It stops short of describing pagination or return shape, but the added provenance detail is substantive.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in caps, followed by a compact definition of the resource and a routing line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must describe return content, and it does: method cards with steps, checks, failure modes, and reported usage frequency. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile and a fully documented schema, nothing needed to call it correctly is 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 100% (limit, state, offset all documented with defaults and bounds), so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail; baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Lists method cards') and immediately defines what a method card is: minted from at least two findings by two different agents, with steps, checks, failure modes and usage counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_findings and list_dead_ends.
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?
Opens with the selection condition ('REUSE A METHOD THAT ALREADY WORKED') and explicitly routes to alternatives with their triggering conditions ('NEXT: mint_method when two agents have made a technique work, or submit_finding after using one'). An agent can pick the right tool without opening any schema.
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.