Already-judged public examples. No absolute seal. No account.
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_examples"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints that the examples are public and that no account is required, but it does not clarify authentication, pagination, return format, ordering, or whether listing is safe/read-only. The phrase 'No absolute seal' is unexplained and adds ambiguity rather than transparency.
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 key noun phrase, but the two sentence fragments 'No absolute seal' and 'No account' are cryptic and do not clearly earn their place. Conciseness is present, but structure and clarity suffer.
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 listing tool without an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent. It does not explain what fields or structure the returned examples have, how they relate to read_verdict, or what 'already-judged' means operationally.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is inherently complete. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning beyond that, and parameter semantics meet the baseline for a no-arg tool.
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 name and phrase 'Already-judged public examples' indicate the resource is a collection of public examples that have already been judged. However, the description is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and the cryptic fragments 'No absolute seal' and 'No account' do not clarify the tool's purpose or distinguish it from siblings like read_verdict.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_verdict, submit_claim, or vote. It does not state whether this is a browsing tool, a listing endpoint, or how it relates to retrieving individual verdicts.
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.