List all services in a REG.RU account, optionally filtered by type like domain or hosting. Use it to audit active services and locate resources by category.
List all services in the account. Optionally filter by service type (domain, hosting, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| servtype | No | Service type filter (e.g., "domain", "hosting") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about pagination, result size limits, authentication requirements, or the shape of the returned service entries.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the optional filter detail. Nothing in the text is redundant given its short length.
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 single-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least sketch the return content (what a 'service' entry contains) or note pagination behavior. As written, gaps remain that an agent cannot fill from structured fields.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical examples ('domain', 'hosting') echo the schema's own examples rather than adding new meaning.
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 and resource ('List all services in the account') and defines the scope as the whole account. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as regru_get_service_info or regru_list_folders, so an agent must infer the boundary between listing services and inspecting a single service.
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 word 'Optionally' signals that the filter is not required, which gives implied usage. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus regru_get_service_info, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, so the agent must reason about alternatives on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.