list_issuersReturn the signed consortium issuer registry document, verbatim as published at consortium-10060.org/issuers.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_id | Yes | ||
| issuers | Yes | ||
| updated | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| trust_anchor | No | ||
| registry_version | Yes | ||
| verification_url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the result is signed and returned verbatim from a fixed URL, which is useful context but not a substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.
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 sentence conveys the action, the exact resource, the signed/verbatim nature, and the source URL without any filler. Every clause contributes meaningful information.
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 parameterless, read-only tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, this description is sufficient. An agent knows what will be returned, where it comes from, and that no input is required.
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 there is no input semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is needed.
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 names a specific resource (the signed consortium issuer registry document) and the action (Return), along with the canonical source URL. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_rule_sets, but the resource is specific enough to avoid confusion.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_rule_sets, get_record, or resolve_compliance. The description states what is returned but not under what conditions an agent should select this tool.
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 clearly distinct operation: retrieving a specific record, listing issuers, listing rule sets, publishing, and resolving current compliance. The only potentially similar pair (get_record vs resolve_compliance) is clearly separated by record_id lookup versus jurisdictional object resolution.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_record, list_issuers, list_rule_sets, publish_record, resolve_compliance. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Five tools is well-scoped for this regulatory compliance domain, covering read, list, publish, and resolve operations without unnecessary surface area. Each tool earns its place in the workflow.
The suite covers the essential lifecycle: publishing verifiable records, retrieving any record including superseded ones, resolving the current compliance object, and listing the supporting issuers and rule sets. The immutable, audit-oriented design means update/delete are intentionally absent rather than gaps.