Retrieve available claims and their sensitivity levels to evaluate access permissions.
List available claims with sensitivity levels.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_claims"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool lists claims with sensitivity levels, but does not disclose side effects (likely none), authorization needs, or data freshness. For a tool with no parameters, the behavior is simple, but more transparency could help.
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 description is a single sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place with precise wording.
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 no parameters or output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple list operation. It tells the agent what the tool provides (claims with sensitivity levels). However, it could mention if the list is complete or filtered in any way, but overall it is adequately complete for its simplicity.
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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter information, but since none exist, this is appropriate. The baseline is 4 for no parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's function: listing available claims with sensitivity levels. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('claims'), and adds detail about sensitivity levels, distinguishing it from siblings like 'request_claim' or 'verify_bundle_offline' which have different purposes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain how 'list_claims' differs from 'get_receipts' or other listing operations. No context about prerequisites or ideal scenarios is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.