list_rulesList all MCP Guard Scan rules with category, default severity, and detection mode to identify static checks versus CLI --probe checks.
List every MCPG rule with its category, default severity and whether it is static or needs the CLI's --probe mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rules | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context by flagging that some rules are static while others require the CLI's --probe mode, which tells the agent a rule's applicability depends on how the CLI was run. It adds nothing about ordering or whether user-defined rules are included.
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?
One dense sentence with the action and the returned fields front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (category, severity, static vs probe) maps to information the agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it correctly stays out of that. For a no-parameter enumeration tool, the only gaps are scope questions the description leaves open, such as whether custom/project rules are included alongside built-ins and whether the 'MCPG' acronym is explained.
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 for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the description.
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 ('List') and resource ('every MCPG rule') and enumerates what each entry contains (category, default severity, static vs probe-required), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It stops short of naming a sibling like explain_rule, so the single-rule-vs-all-rules distinction has to be inferred from 'every'.
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: you call this to enumerate rules, presumably before calling explain_rule on one of them. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use for X, use sibling Y instead' statement, and no mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.