octav_list_bundlesList every address-book bundle with its ID, name, and addresses, then pass a bundle's addresses to the portfolio tool to view holdings.
List every bundle (a named group of address book addresses, as in Octav Pro) with its id, name, and addresses. Pass a bundle's addresses to octav_get_portfolio to see its holdings. Costs 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the readOnly/non-destructive/open-world profile, so the description's added value is the cost disclosure ("Costs 1 credit") and the shape of what comes back. That is useful, non-redundant behavioral context; pagination or bundle-count limits are not mentioned, keeping it from a 5.
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, zero filler: the definition and return shape come first, then the actionable next step and cost. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields, the concept definition, cost, and a chaining target. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space on inputs and instead spends it on output shape and cost.
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 ("List every bundle"), defines what a bundle is ("a named group of address book addresses"), and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, addresses). "Every" and the plural make it clearly distinct from the singular sibling octav_get_bundle without opening either schema.
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?
Adds a concrete downstream usage hint: pass a bundle's addresses to octav_get_portfolio to see its holdings, which implies when to call this. However, it never states when to prefer the singular octav_get_bundle (when the id is already known) or clarifies its relationship to octav_list_address_book, so alternative selection is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.