Retrieve a complete list of sources from the manifest, including licenses, layers, question numbers, URLs, and hashes, to simplify source auditing and verification.
列出 manifest 中的来源、许可、层级、题号、URL 与哈希。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| case_id | No | ||
| index_default | No | yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('list') but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or how it behaves with edge cases (e.g., empty manifest, large result sets). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the output fields. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for a straightforward listing tool.
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 tool with 4 optional parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, return format (though output schema exists, its details are not shown), or any usage constraints. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional context.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (layer, limit, case_id, index_default). It does not clarify their purpose, valid values, or how they filter or paginate results. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('sources in the manifest') with attributes (licenses, layers, question numbers, URLs, hashes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rag_search (search) and rag_get_document (get single document) by indicating a listing 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or cases where another sibling (e.g., rag_search) would be more appropriate. The description is purely functional, leaving usage to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.