signal_layer_catalogFree machine-readable SignalLayer capability catalog. Use this to enumerate all SignalLayer tools and prices. If the correct tool is uncertain, prefer signal_layer_router.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tools | No | ||
| service | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| defaultEntryPoint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "defaultEntryPoint": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "service": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tools": {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the catalog is 'free' and 'machine-readable', which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about output shape or pricing units beyond what the output schema provides.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the catalog's identity before the routing hint. Slight redundancy between 'capability catalog' and 'enumerate all SignalLayer tools', but nothing wasteful enough to penalize heavily.
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 tool is a no-parameter catalog with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, so return values and safety are already handled. The description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what the catalog is for and when to prefer the router instead.
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 there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related gaps exist.
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 (enumerate) and resource (all SignalLayer tools and prices), and the 'capability catalog' framing makes the resource concrete. An agent can distinguish it from signal_layer_router, which is explicitly named as the alternative.
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?
It gives a clear use case ('Use this to enumerate all SignalLayer tools and prices') and a routing rule when unsure ('prefer signal_layer_router'). What's missing is an explicit negative case for when NOT to use this catalog, e.g. when a specific tool is already known.
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.