list_rulesRetrieve account-wide or machine-scoped rules and their modes: hide, show, raise, or don't send. Omit machine ID for global scope.
The rules in one scope. Mode 1 = Hide, 2 = Show, 3 = Raise, 4 = Don't send.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| machine | No | A machine's public_id (from list_machines), or omit for the account-wide (global) scope. |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds the mode-to-behavior mapping (Hide, Show, Raise, Don't send), which is useful domain context, but omits any mention of pagination, ordering, or what the output contains.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. However, the mode enumeration is front-loaded as a fragment and the purpose sentence is unusually terse, slightly reducing readability.
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?
With only one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description could easily be complete, but it omits the basic purpose of the tool, any usage guidance, and any behavioral details. The mode mapping is helpful but insufficient to compensate for the missing core information.
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%, so the machine parameter's meaning (public_id, omit for global scope) is fully documented in the schema. The description's mode mapping is not tied to any input parameter, and it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'The rules in one scope', which identifies the resource (rules) and the scoping concept, but the verb 'list' is only implied by the tool name. The first sentence is terse and does not clearly state what is returned or how it differs from siblings like list_rule_templates.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_rule_templates or other list tools. The description notes 'one scope', hinting at the machine parameter, but does not explain the choice between global and machine-scoped rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.