list_root_serversList public BMLT root servers known to the BMLT aggregator. Use the returned root_server_url values with other tools to query a specific server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_contains | No | Case-insensitive substring filter applied to the server name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns public servers known to the aggregator and that returned values are usable in later calls, which is useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core function; the second provides actionable guidance on using the result. Every word earns its place.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it defines the scope (public/known aggregator), indicates the return value contains root_server_url, and explains how to use it. This is complete for the given complexity.
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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, with the schema describing it as a case-insensitive substring filter. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema handles the semantics adequately.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('public BMLT root servers known to the BMLT aggregator'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools that operate on meetings, formats, and service bodies. It also notes the output values are meant for use with other tools, which reinforces its unique role.
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 explicitly tells the agent to 'Use the returned root_server_url values with other tools to query a specific server,' providing clear downstream context. It does not compare against alternatives by name, but the guidance is sufficient for when this tool should be invoked (as a discovery step).
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single meeting, server info, formats, root servers, service bodies, and searching meetings. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_meeting, list_root_servers, search_meetings), making it easy for agents to predict and select tools.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a meeting directory server, covering essential operations without being overly sparse or bloated.
The tools cover the full lifecycle for a read-only meeting directory: listing metadata (servers, service bodies, formats), searching meetings with filters, and fetching details. No obvious gaps.