bcos_directoryFilter and list BCOS v2 certificates by tier or retrieve all entries up to a specified limit.
Browse the BCOS v2 certificate directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Optional tier filter (e.g., "gold", "silver", "bronze"). Empty string returns all tiers. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of entries to return (default: 20) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Browse' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is helpful, but no further behavioral details such as authentication needs, side effects, or response size are described. This is adequate for a simple lookup tool but not deeply transparent.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the tool's core action and target resource efficiently.
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, low-complexity browse tool with an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, but that gap is already captured under usage guidelines.
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 input schema already documents both parameters (tier and limit) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Browse', and identifies the exact resource, the 'BCOS v2 certificate directory'. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools such as bcos_verify and wallet/beacon tools.
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 intended use is implied by 'Browse the BCOS v2 certificate directory', but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.