ecc_list_domainsList the four ECC domains with codes, names, and subdomain/control counts. Choose English or Arabic and markdown or JSON output.
List the four ECC domains with their codes, names and the number of subdomains and controls in each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language for summaries and names: en or ar. | en |
| response_format | No | markdown for reading, json for further processing. | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the shape of the returned content, with no notes on rate limits, pagination, or behavior of the lang option.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool returns, with no filler or redundancy. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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, parameterless-required read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and know what comes back. It is only slightly short of ideal in not mentioning the lang/response_format effects on output.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (lang, response_format) are documented in the schema with enums and defaults. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('the four ECC domains') and enumerates exactly what is returned: codes, names, and subdomain/control counts. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ecc_list_subdomains or ecc_families without opening any 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?
Usage is implied by the purpose: an agent can infer this is the top-level enumerator for domains. However, the description never states when to use it versus alternatives such as ecc_overview, ecc_families, or ecc_list_subdomains, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.