List all detection lists available in OpenCDR using a read-only operation, so you can review and select lists for detection and correlation workflows.
List all detection lists. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only behavioral statement, "Read-only," restates readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false that the annotations already declare, adding no information. Nothing is said about volume, pagination, or whether the list is filtered by account scope.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payload. The second sentence is largely redundant against the annotations, so it is not quite waste-free.
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-argument read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description could say what a detection list record contains or how it relates to opencdr_rules_list / opencdr_lists_show. The agent is left to discover the return shape by calling it.
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?
Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List all detection lists"), which is distinguishable from opencdr_lists_show by the word "all". It never names the sibling, though, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus opencdr_lists_show, opencdr_rules_list, or any other list endpoint. The agent must infer that this is enumeration-only and must open the sibling schemas to confirm.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.