List the calling tenant's ignore rules. READ: available to any authenticated user.
Each entry shows its signal, service, operation (null means whole service), the fingerprint dimension and value it matches, its expiry (null means permanent), and when/by whom it was created.
| 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, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'READ: available to any authenticated user', disclosing the read-only nature. It also details the content of each entry, including null meanings for operation and expiry, which is helpful behavioral context.
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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide essential return-value details. 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?
For a simple listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, scope, and the structure of the response, ensuring the agent understands what to expect.
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 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what each entry shows, which complements the empty property list. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this description meets it.
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 'List the calling tenant's ignore rules' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_suppressions by explicitly naming ignore rules and the tenant scope.
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 provides clear context by labeling it as 'READ: available to any authenticated user', implying a safe read operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to use this tool.
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.