list_testsList all available test definitions (plugins). Shows slug, name, category, runner type, weight class, schedule, and enablement status. Useful for knowing which tests can be triggered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by test category | |
| enabledOnly | No | Only show enabled tests. Default: true. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output fields and general purpose, but does not clarify the default filtering behavior (enabledOnly=true) or explicitly state that it is a read-only operation. The phrase 'all available' could mislead given the default filter, so it provides some but not full 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and output details, with no filler or redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it lists the output fields and states the use case. Minor ambiguity around 'all available' vs. the enabledOnly default prevents a perfect score.
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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, instead focusing on output fields. 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List all available test definitions (plugins)' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the fields shown and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_load_tests or trigger_test, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
Provides clear usage context: 'Useful for knowing which tests can be triggered.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions are mentioned, so it earns a 4.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource (targets, runs, findings, incidents, etc.) and action. A few close pairs like active_runs/list_runs and mute_finding/create_muting_rule could confuse, but descriptions clarify the distinctions.
The majority of tools follow verb_noun naming (create_target, get_target, delete_journey). A few outliers use noun phrases (active_runs, daily_trends, system_health, team_stats) which slightly breaks the pattern, but overall the convention is predictable.
74 tools is extreme for any MCP server. Even for a comprehensive monitoring platform, this overwhelms agents with too many granular operations (e.g., enable_all_tests vs disable_all_tests vs update_test, or import_targets duplicating create_target). A more consolidated set would be appropriate.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for the monitoring domain: full CRUD for targets, journeys, rules, reports, secrets, and fragments; plus run triggering, incident management, findings handling, SEO tracking, guest scans, and admin tools. Only maintenance windows lack an update operation, which is minor.