List all credibility categories with descriptions, typical score ranges, and domain counts to help interpret domain ratings and select relevant dataset filters.
List all credibility categories with their descriptions, typical score ranges, and domain counts from the dataset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does convey that this is a static reference enumeration with no side effects and tells what fields come back. It says nothing about result size, ordering, caching, or whether the category set is fixed, which matters for an agent planning a loop.
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 with no filler; every clause names a concrete returned field rather than restating the tool name.
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 no-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation read tool, the description gives enough to call it correctly and to know what comes back. The only shortfall is the missing hint about how it relates to get_stats.
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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing only return content.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('credibility categories') with an enumeration of the fields returned (descriptions, score ranges, domain counts). It is clearly distinct from check_domain / search_domains / batch_check, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the potentially confusable sibling get_stats.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the reference-lookup call to make before filtering by category, but the description never states when to call it or when to prefer get_stats instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.