Return the CausalLayer issuer registry, or one issuer record. The registry lists all trusted public-key fingerprints, key algorithms, validity windows, and the anchor-log repo for each active issuer. FREE — no API key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issuer_id | No | Optional issuer id, e.g. 'causallayer-prod-2026-q2'. If omitted, returns the full registry. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description adds useful context: access is free/no API key required, and only active issuers are included. It does not mention response format, error handling, or rate limits, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Return,' and the auth trait is disclosed.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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 one-optional-param query tool, the description adequately covers purpose, data fields, and access requirements. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid issuer_id) but is otherwise sufficient.
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 sole parameter issuer_id is fully described in the schema (optional, example, behavior when omitted). The description merely echoes this information without adding new semantic details, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource (CausalLayer issuer registry) and its contents (fingerprints, algorithms, validity windows, anchor-log repo). It distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_certificate by focusing on registry retrieval rather than verification.
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 explicit usage guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies use when needing issuer registry data, but it does not specify when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools such as verify_certificate.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but submit_incident and submit_otel_trace both create certificates from different input sources, and verify_certificate and verify_certificate_recompute both verify but via different methods. Descriptions and input types make them distinguishable, so ambiguity is low.
All names use snake_case and generally follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., submit_incident, verify_certificate). Deviations like verify_certificate_recompute (verb_noun_modifier) and evaluate_prospective_response (verb_adjective_noun) are minor and remain predictable.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and maps cleanly to the domain: incident submission, text extraction, pre-response gating, certificate verification, remediation simulation, jurisdiction analysis, and issuer/anchor metadata queries. Each tool serves a distinct workflow step without redundancy.
The core lifecycle (extract → submit → verify → analyze) is well covered. However, several tools reference external catalog endpoints (e.g., /jurisdiction/catalog, /remediation/catalog, /gate/thresholds) that are not exposed as MCP tools, forcing an agent to make separate HTTP calls to use these tools effectively. This is a minor workaround, not a critical gap.