list_presets
List available rule preset bundles. Requires API key (Dev+).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
List available rule preset bundles. Requires API key (Dev+).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes an authentication requirement ('Requires API key (Dev+)'), which is a useful behavioral disclosure. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect safety or return format, though 'List' implies a read-only operation. With no annotations, it partially carries the transparency burden.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds the auth requirement efficiently. Every word earns its place with no waste.
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 parameterless list tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists and the auth prerequisite. It does not describe output format or additional context, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 a clear resource ('rule preset bundles'), which precisely states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apply_preset and list_custom_rules by focusing on preset bundles.
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 only mentions a prerequisite (API key) but does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_custom_rules or get_rules. There is no explicit guidance on preferred scenarios or exclusions.
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 clearly distinct purposes (e.g., CRUD for custom rules, mode management, presets, validation). However, get_rules, list_custom_rules, and get_rule_modes could be confused since all return rule-related info, though descriptions differentiate their focus.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_custom_rule, get_audit_log, delete_custom_rule). Even multi-word names like ship_confidence_check maintain the pattern, with no mixing of conventions.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3–15 range but appropriate for the rule enforcement domain, covering custom rules, presets, modes, audit, and validation. However, three planned-but-unimplemented tools add clutter and could be confusing.
Core operations are present: full CRUD for custom rules, preset application, mode overrides, validation, and audit log. However, three tools are non-functional (NOT_IMPLEMENTED), and there is no way to remove a bypass or manage constitutional rules, leaving some noticeable gaps.