Lists all security rules loaded in the MCP server, with ID, title, severity, and layer, to audit rule coverage, confirm a rule exists, or debug missing rules.
현재 서버에 적재된 전체 보안 룰 목록(ID·제목·심각도·계층)을 반환합니다.
디버깅·감사용입니다: 룰이 몇 개 적재됐는지, 특정 룰이 포함됐는지 확인할 때 쓰세요. 룰 내용 검색은 search_rules, 전문 조회는 get_rule 이 적합합니다. 네트워크 호출이 없습니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a behavioral trait beyond structure – 'no network calls,' implying a cheap local read – which is genuinely informative. However, it never explicitly states that the operation is read-only with no side effects, and gives no detail on ordering, stability, or scale of the result.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, alternatives, and a brief behavioral note. Four short sentences, each earning its place, with no redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained in depth, and with no input parameters there is nothing else to document. The description covers purpose, routing to siblings, and the no-network behavior, leaving no meaningful gap for an agent to call it 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?
This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's listing of returned fields applies to output rather than input, so there is nothing parameter-level it needs to compensate for.
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?
States a specific verb and resource – returns the full list of security rules currently loaded on the server – and even enumerates the returned fields (ID, title, severity, layer). It cleanly distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by naming search_rules and get_rule as the alternatives for different retrieval needs.
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?
Explicitly scopes usage to debugging/auditing – checking how many rules loaded or whether a specific rule is present – and names the alternatives (search_rules for content search, get_rule for full-text lookup). The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else conditions are both spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.