List supported and planned official data sources and their access characteristics.
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_sources"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| sources | Yes | ||
| warnings | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful scope detail ('supported and planned') and content detail ('access characteristics'), and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, pagination, or any side-effect status beyond that implication.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope.
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?
The definition is simple and an output schema exists, but it omits any explanation of the optional topic parameter and provides no usage guidance relative to sibling tools. These are real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this 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 schema has one optional 'topic' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions topic or its effect. The agent can guess from the parameter name that it might filter by subject, but the definition provides no explicit semantic help.
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'), a specific resource ('supported and planned official data sources'), and the type of information returned ('their access characteristics'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_source_setup or find_microdata, but the resource scope is clear enough to distinguish it.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_source_setup or find_microdata, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The intended use case is only implied by the verb and resource.
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.