list_classesList your account's classification classes with IDs, names, and descriptions to get valid class IDs for document classification.
List the account's classification classes (id, name, description). classify needs class ids from here. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond that: the shape of the result (id, name, description) with no output schema available, and the cost signal "Free.", which is a genuine behavioral fact an agent cannot infer from structured fields.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then the routing rule, then the cost. Every clause carries information; the fragment "Free." earns its place as a distinct cost signal.
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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, why to call it, and that it is free. Only minor items such as whether the list is paginated or how failures surface are unstated, and those are unlikely to block a correct call.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-related gaps exist.
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?
"List the account's classification classes" gives a specific verb plus resource and even names the returned fields (id, name, description), so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not explicitly contrast with close-sounding siblings like list_schemas, leaving that differentiation to the resource name alone.
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?
"classify needs class ids from here" gives an explicit prerequisite and routing rule, which is the main situation in which an agent would call this. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but a zero-parameter discovery list tool rarely has a competing alternative worth excluding.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.