Agent-Readiness Audit

list_index

List companies on the public Agent-Readiness Index, optionally filtered by category. Each score includes the rubric version that produced it.

Tool call template

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_index"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	No	Optional category name, such as Payments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`companies`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / companies / items / properties / rubricVersion
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "integer",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / companies / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "domain",
-  "category",
-  "score",
-  "scanId"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "domain",
+  "category",
+  "score",
+  "rubricVersion",
+  "scanId"
+]

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It adds two useful hints — the index is "public" (suggesting no auth) and each score carries its rubric version — but says nothing about result-set size, pagination/limits, freshness of scores, or error behavior for an invalid category.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the filter, with no filler. The rubric-version note is the one extra detail and it is genuinely informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the lack of any statement about how many entries are returned or whether results are complete versus truncated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter already documented as "Optional category name, such as Payments." The description restates the filter and adds nothing about casing, exact matching, or what happens when the category is unknown, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List companies on the public Agent-Readiness Index") plus an optional filter, which is far clearer than the name alone. It implicitly separates itself from scan_site by naming a distinct index resource, but never explicitly contrasts with get_index_rank, which also reads index data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"optionally filtered by category" implies the main usage pattern, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_index_rank (per-company rank lookup) or scan_site (producing data). The agent must infer the routing from the names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agent-Readiness Audit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?