List the tracking systems that are explicitly configured, and the default URL pattern used for other system names.
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_tracking_systems"
}
}| 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the content scope (explicitly configured systems and a default URL pattern for others), which is useful, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or return format. It is minimally viable for a list operation but lacks fuller transparency.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the main action and packs in the two key pieces of returned information without any 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?
For a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (configured tracking systems and the default URL pattern for others). It could be stronger if it clarified the return format or how to use the results, but it covers the essential conceptual return values.
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. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and there is nothing in the schema that needs compensating for.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (tracking systems), and adds the scope of what is returned: explicitly configured systems plus the default URL pattern for other system names. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_delivery_proof and get_parcel_tracking, which likely retrieve tracking data rather than system configuration.
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 description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not indicate whether this should be called before or instead of get_parcel_tracking or get_delivery_proof, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
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.