List dispatcher routes and mock rules, optionally filtering by host, to expose invalid rule files as errors while ignoring them in active routing.
List dispatcher routes and rules, optionally for one host. Invalid rule
files are reported in errors and ignored by the dispatcher.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| errors | No | ||
| routes | No | ||
| mock_dir | 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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a notable behavior: invalid rule files are reported in `errors` and ignored by the dispatcher. This is valuable beyond the schema. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, but 'List' implies a read operation and no mutation is suggested.
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, no filler. The core action and optional filter are front-loaded, and the error-handling behavior is appended in a second concise sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (invalid rule files reported in errors). It doesn't describe the output structure, but the output schema exists and the description needn't explain return values. Minor gap: no explicit statement that this is a read-only operation, but 'List' makes that clear.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `host` parameter's purpose ('optionally for one host'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. With only one parameter, this is sufficient; no other parameters need clarification.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('dispatcher routes and rules'), and adds an optional host filter. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like mock_rule_get (single rule) and mock_list (generic list), though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.
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 implies usage: call it to list routes/rules, optionally scoped to one host. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over mock_list or mock_rule_get, nor does it mention any prerequisites. The optional host parameter gives some context but no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.