list_strategiesList every supported strategy with its required and optional input fields. Call this first when unsure which inputs a strategy needs. Free, no key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strategies | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "strategies": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "strategies"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value beyond these. It discloses that the tool is 'Free, no key' (no authentication required) and that it lists 'every supported strategy,' indicating a complete enumeration without filtering. This supplements the annotation-provided 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 two concise sentences that front-load the main action, immediately state the usage recommendation, and add a practical note about cost/authentication. Every sentence provides distinct value, and there is no verbosity or repetition.
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?
This is a simple, parameterless tool with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and an output schema. The description covers the full scope: what it lists, when to use it, and access requirements. No additional context is needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.
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, and the schema is empty (100% coverage by default). The per-rubric baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, but it does clarify what the output contains (required and optional input fields per strategy), which adds useful context.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List every supported strategy with its required and optional input fields.' The verb 'list' and resource 'strategies' are specific, and the scope 'every supported strategy' distinguishes it from the sibling analysis/optimization tools. It unambiguously describes a discovery/metadata operation.
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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first when unsure which inputs a strategy needs.' This establishes a clear use case and priority, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria. The guidance is clear and actionable, fitting a score of 4.
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.