list_sourcesList where the eating disorder program data comes from, with the license and refresh of each source.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the output includes license and refresh details for each source, which goes beyond the safety profile.
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 well-formed sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then adds the useful return-content detail.
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 no-parameter listing tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource and the metadata returned; only minor details such as ordering or whether all sources are always returned are omitted.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level ambiguity to resolve. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description correctly avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.
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 uses a specific verb ("List") and resource ("where the eating disorder program data comes from") and clarifies that each item includes license and refresh information. This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools such as list_categories or list_products.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for inspecting data sources and their metadata. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus other list/get tools or whether there are any prerequisites.
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.