metadata_list_applicability_domainList applicability domain reference definitions to help AI agents assess whether chemical toxicity models apply to a given substance.
List applicability domain reference definitions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nextCursor | No | ||
| applicabilityDomains | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – it says nothing about pagination behavior, result scope, or what 'reference definitions' actually contain.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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, and the operation is simple. But the undocumented pagination parameters and the unresolved overlap with metadata_get_applicability_domain leave real gaps 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?
Schema coverage is 0% – neither 'limit' nor 'cursor' is documented anywhere. The description does not compensate, never mentioning pagination or the cursor/limit mechanism, so an agent must infer pagination semantics entirely.
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 ('applicability domain reference definitions'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling metadata_get_applicability_domain, leaving the agent to guess which to call.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related metadata_get_applicability_domain sibling. The agent gets no help choosing between this and its near-duplicate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.