list_registrationsList all imported ERC-8004 registrations.
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": "list_registrations"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral detail is that results are limited to registrations that have already been imported, which is useful but thin. It says nothing about ordering, volume, or whether the list can be empty.
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 no filler, and the scope qualifier ("imported") is placed before the resource noun so the constraint is read first. Nothing is redundant with the title beyond the unavoidable verb-resource pairing.
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 parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the definition needs little more. The remaining gap is minor: it does not indicate whether results are paginated or bounded, which an agent managing large registration sets might want to know.
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 parameter semantics to explain and the baseline for an argument-free tool applies. The description correctly signals that no filtering input is expected.
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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("imported ERC-8004 registrations"), so an agent can tell this is a retrieval operation over previously imported records rather than an import action. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as import_registration or describe_agent, which keeps it short of 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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the siblings (import_registration, resolve_agent, describe_agent). The word "imported" hints at scope but does not tell the agent when to choose this listing over resolving or describing an agent.
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.