Retrieve a user's declared tools, trigger phrases, stance, and outcome report so agents can relay results as the user's own record rather than a verdict.
The user's declared own tools (__own__: ids), triggers verbatim, stance, and report:
their own outcome record. Relay the record as theirs, never as a verdict on the tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies that the returned outcome record belongs to the user and should be relayed as theirs rather than as a verdict on the tool, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what access constraints apply.
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 short and front-loads the resource, but the phrasing around `report`: their own outcome record is syntactically awkward and forces the agent to parse what is being returned. It is appropriately sized but not cleanly structured.
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 no output schema, the description must explain the return shape, and it only partially does so by naming triggers, stance, and report. It does not fully clarify the record structure or how this tool relates to sibling tools that also deal with the user's tool preferences and declarations.
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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.
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 identifies a specific resource—the user's declared own tools—and adds that it exposes triggers, stance, and an outcome record. However, it never uses a clear verb such as list, retrieve, or describe, and it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like my_preferred_tools or declare_my_tool.
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?
It gives an instruction about how to relay the returned record, but no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to call it, or which sibling to use instead. With many related tools available, that guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.