list_membersThe 49 sovereign jurisdictional member nodes — code, namespace, jurisdiction, region, and GS1 territory GTIN. Live supply/demand data per member is the CPG Knowledge Graph's job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only describes what is listed (static metadata) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Listing is assumed read-only but not confirmed.
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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding a clarifying scope note. No wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, no parameters, and low complexity, the description is almost complete. It explains what is listed and the fields included. Minor gap: no mention of authentication or pagination, but acceptable for a simple list tool.
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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by enumerating the output fields (code, namespace, jurisdiction, region, GS1 territory GTIN), which the schema did not provide. This is a helpful clarification.
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 it lists '49 sovereign jurisdictional member nodes' with specific fields (code, namespace, jurisdiction, region, GS1 territory GTIN). This verb-resource combination is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like get_header_canon or list_protocols.
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 implies this tool is for metadata only by stating 'Live supply/demand data per member is the CPG Knowledge Graph's job,' but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance nor name alternatives for live data.
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 targets a distinct resource (headers, protocols, members, signals, dimensions) with clear actions (get, list, resolve). There is no overlap in functionality; even the two protocol tools differ in granularity (list vs. get).
Naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores and lowercase. Minor inconsistency: 'list_sparks_dimensions' uses plural while 'resolve_sparks_dimension' uses singular, but overall the pattern is clear.
With 9 tools covering headers, protocols, members, signals, and dimensions, the count is well-proportioned for the domain. Each tool addresses a specific query type without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
The tool surface provides complete read access to all canonical entities: headers, protocols, members, signals, and dimensions. Listing and resolving operations are covered for each entity, matching the server's stated purpose of querying agent protocol data.