列出已支持的 CA(用于挑战路径推导与 CAA 比对)。
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": "dcv.list_cas"
}
}| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly signals a read-only enumeration of supported CAs, but never states that it is non-mutating, whether the list is static/configuration-derived, or what the returned entries look like — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the purpose in a parenthetical; there is no filler and nothing redundant for a zero-argument list tool.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should say what the returned entries contain (names, identifiers, key types?) and whether the list is filtered or complete. It conveys intent but leaves the shape of the result and any ordering/completeness guarantees unstated.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed to obtain the full supported-CA list, and there is nothing else to document.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ("列出已支持的 CA") and even the downstream purpose (challenge path derivation, CAA comparison), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name or contrast any sibling (cert.match, dcv.check, inspect.run), which is what separates a 4 from a 5.
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 parenthetical states why the data is useful (challenge path derivation, CAA matching), which implies when to call it, but there is no explicit "call this before X" or "do not use for Y" guidance and no mention of alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the stated purpose.
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.