Lists all canonical OpenWorkProof domains and identifies which ones support Ed25519 signing, excluding sidecar-event.
List canonical OpenWorkProof domains; this tool takes no input parameters.
Returns:
A dict with canonical_domains (all 9) and signed_domains
(8 — excludes sidecar-event which cannot be signed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it explains the return dict, counts (all 9 canonical domains, 8 signed domains), and the key exception that sidecar-event cannot be signed. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or permission requirements, but 'List' strongly implies a safe read operation.
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 front-loaded and efficient. The core purpose appears in the first clause, followed by useful return details, with no wasted sentences.
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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It adds a helpful summary of return values and an important excluded domain, though it does not route the agent against sibling tools.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately confirms that it takes no input parameters, consistent with the empty input schema.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List canonical OpenWorkProof domains'. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related sibling tools such as owp_get_schema.
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 states the tool takes no input parameters, which is useful invocation context, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools, and no routing or exclusion guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.