list_taxonomiesTaxonomies used to classify incidents (CSET-AIID, GMF, RAIC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taxas | No | Available taxonomies for incident classification |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "taxas": {
+ "description": "Available taxonomies for incident classification",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Taxonomy description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "namespace": {
+ "description": "Taxonomy namespace (e.g., CSET-AIID, GMF, RAIC)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "weight": {
+ "description": "Taxonomy weight or priority",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the purpose (classifying incidents). No contradiction with 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?
Single sentence, highly concise, front-loads key information (purpose and examples). No wasted words.
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?
Tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema. Description adequately covers purpose and scope. Could briefly mention that it returns a list, but output schema already exists, so not 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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% vacuously). Description adds meaning by specifying the kind of taxonomies (classification-related), but no parameter-level detail needed. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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?
Description explicitly states that the tool lists taxonomies used for incident classification, with specific examples (CSET-AIID, GMF, RAIC). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_incidents' or 'get_incident'.
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?
Description implies usage context (when needing to know available taxonomies) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusions. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.
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.