List the certifying bodies / vendors in the current Cert Atlas index with exam counts. Call for 'what certification providers/vendors are covered', 'how many AWS/Microsoft/Cisco certs'. Optionally filter by a substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contains | No | Optional substring filter on the body name, e.g. 'micro', 'aws' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds that it returns exam counts, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, mention pagination, or discuss potential empty results. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 compact sentences cover purpose, usage, and filtering. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output, the second provides concrete call examples. No redundant wording.
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 adequately covers purpose, when to use, and filtering. It lacks explicit output format details (e.g., whether the list is a flat array or objects with counts), but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and the fact that 'exam counts' is mentioned.
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 schema already fully describes the single optional parameter 'contains' with examples. The description only restates it as 'Optionally filter by a substring', adding no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a clear verb (List), resource (certifying bodies/vendors), and adds 'with exam counts' which specifics the output. It also gives concrete example queries, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_exams or compare_exams.
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?
Provides clear when-to-use guidance ('Call for ... what certification providers/vendors are covered') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. Since siblings cover different operations, the absence of exclusionary language is acceptable but keeps it from a 5.
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: search exams filters the index, blueprint provides deep detail on one exam, compare handles multi-exam side-by-side, and list bodies aggregates vendors. No overlap in intent or output.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: compare_exams, get_exam_blueprint, list_certifying_bodies, search_exams. Uniform convention throughout.
With four tools, the surface is lean and purposeful: search, detail, comparison, and vendor listing. This is exactly the right scope for a certification reference server.
The four tools cover the core lifecycle: discover exams (search), view full details (blueprint), compare options (compare), and understand the vendor landscape (list bodies). No essential operation is missing for the stated domain.
