Seller side: list your gateway endpoints with status, price and slug. Read-only. REQUIRES OPERATOR KEY.
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": "gateway_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile ('Read-only') plus an auth requirement (operator key) and which fields come back (status, price, slug). It omits whether paused/inactive endpoints are included and whether results are paginated, keeping it below a 5.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with scope, then safety, then the prerequisite. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, safety, auth requirement, and the shape of the return payload. Only edge details like inclusion of paused endpoints or pagination are unstated.
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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The brief mention of returned fields is a bonus rather than a parameter explanation.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('list your gateway endpoints') and adds the scope 'Seller side', which implicitly separates it from the buyer-facing gateway_catalog. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops 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?
The 'Seller side' framing and the 'REQUIRES OPERATOR KEY' prerequisite imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus gateway_catalog, gateway_stats, or gateway_probe, and no exclusions.
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.