list_hostnamesLists all visible hostnames with active counts and plan cap, so you can verify available capacity before minting new hostnames.
Every hostname this key can see, with how many are active and the plan's cap. Check the cap before minting: a hostname is the unit the plan counts.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns active counts and plan cap, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't specify details like pagination, sorting, or the exact meaning of 'active', leaving some gaps. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and output, the second gives a usage hint. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 read-only list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned (hostnames, active count, cap) and why it should be used (before minting). Minor gaps like pagination or ordering are not critical given the simplicity of the tool.
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 schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuously). There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is fine.
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 lists all hostnames visible to the current key, along with active counts and plan cap. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like mint_hostname (creates) and get_hostname (retrieves a single hostname) by indicating a full listing and capacity overview.
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 a clear use case: 'Check the cap before minting'. It implies this tool should be called before creating a new hostname to verify capacity. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.