list_statusReturns the versions of the mirrored data: each screening dataset (U.S. CSL, UN, UK, EU) with its as-of date, file timestamp, entry count and last update check, each list's name, agency, entry count and as-of date, the current HTS revision, and when the mirror was last built and last checked for updates.
| 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the exact shape of the payload (per-dataset and per-list fields, mirror build/check timestamps), which matters because there is no output schema to lean on.
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?
Front-loaded with the core statement, then a dense enumeration with no filler sentences. It is a single long run-on sentence, though, and splitting the dataset-level, list-level, and mirror-level items would make it easier to scan.
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 carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so comprehensively across all three tiers (screening datasets, screening lists, HTS revision, mirror state). For a zero-parameter read-only metadata tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.
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 schema is empty with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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 ('Returns the versions of the mirrored data') and enumerates exactly what it covers: per-dataset as-of dates, file timestamps, entry counts, HTS revision, and mirror build/check times. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling query and screening tools, which return substance rather than provenance metadata.
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 explicit 'use when' clause, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The intent — verifying data freshness or citing an as-of date — is strongly implied by the content enumerated, but the agent must infer that it should call this before acting on stale-looking results.
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.