List scoped API credential metadata (GET /api/v1.1/me/credentials). Never returns secrets. Requires live user API.
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": "memeswap_list_credentials"
}
}| 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 the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds two things they don't cover: a hard security guarantee ('Never returns secrets') and the auth precondition ('Requires live user API'). It doesn't mention pagination or result shape, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with what is returned, then the security guarantee, then the auth requirement. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, that it is safe to read, that secrets are excluded, and that a live user API is needed. Pagination/result volume is the only notable omission.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.
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 precise verb (List) plus resource (scoped API credential metadata) and even names the underlying endpoint, so it is unmistakably distinct from siblings like memeswap_create_credential and memeswap_revoke_credential.
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 prerequisite 'Requires live user API' is a useful condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as memeswap_list_wallet_refs or guidance on when a credential list is the right call. Usage is only implied.
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.