Retrieve metadata of supported sanctions and watchlists, including IDs, sources, versions, and update dates. Use to verify available public lists before screening.
Метаданные поддерживаемых публичных перечней: id, источник, версия, дата обновления. Тариф Pro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output contents (metadata fields) and the Pro access restriction, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or whether pagination or rate limits apply. For a simple no-parameter listing tool, this is minimal but acceptable.
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 text is very short, front-loads the key information, and contains no filler. The lack of a main verb makes it a fragment rather than a polished sentence, preventing a perfect score.
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?
Given zero parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools that reveal the domain, the description covers the essential extra context: what metadata is returned and that Pro access is required. It does not cover error conditions or list semantics, but those are not necessary for a simple metadata listing.
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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 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?
The description identifies the resource ('supported public lists') and the information returned (id, source, version, update date), which distinguishes it from the screening-focused siblings. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', so the action is mostly conveyed by the tool name.
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?
It provides a usage condition ('Pro tariff'), indicating that Pro access is required, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the screen_* siblings. The intended use is implied by the domain, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.