bindings_listRetrieve worker-connection bindings, with optional filtering by worker ID.
List worker↔connection bindings, optionally for one worker.
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": "bindings_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workerId | No |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not mention permissions, pagination, ordering, error handling, or whether the list is complete or paginated.
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 extremely concise (one sentence, 9 words) and front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place, but could be slightly more structured without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or authorization requirements, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by stating the parameter is optional and filters by worker. However, it does not explain the format, constraints, or expected values for 'workerId', leaving ambiguity.
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 resource ('worker↔connection bindings') and mentions optional filtering by worker. It clearly conveys the tool's function, though it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'connections_list' or 'binding_create', but the action is distinct enough.
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 versus alternatives, such as 'connections_list' or other list tools. The only usage hint is the optional 'workerId' parameter for filtering, but there are no exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.