Lists available MCP services exposed through the governance proxy, so you can inspect them before defining access policy, confirmations, or audit rules.
List services (read).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1-glama.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only offers "(read)" to indicate the operation is non-destructive. It says nothing about authentication needs, whether results are paginated, or the scope of what is listed (all namespaces? all clusters?), which matters for a cluster-level listing tool.
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 definition is two words plus a safety tag, with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. For a no-argument listing tool there is nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 need not be described, and with no inputs the call signature is fully determined by the name. Still, for a listing tool that is trivially confused with get_service, the description omits the one piece of context that would make it complete: which sibling to prefer and what scope is listed.
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 the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to add beyond the schema, and the description does not introduce any confusion on that front.
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?
"List services" gives a specific verb and resource, and "(read)" confirms the operation is non-mutating. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_service, leaving the agent to infer that this returns all services rather than one.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_service, which is the obvious alternative for retrieving a single service. The only usage hint is the parenthetical "(read)", which signals a safe read but says nothing about selection criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.