list_rule_setsFind available prebuilt and custom rule sets for your organization to identify which scoring criteria can be applied to text safety, quality, and compliance checks.
List the prebuilt and custom rule sets available to this organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read/list operation scoped to the organization, but it does not disclose how the include_inactive parameter affects the returned list or whether inactive rule sets are excluded by default.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and readable, though it could have added parameter context without much additional length.
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?
The core purpose is stated, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of the only parameter, the definition is incomplete. An agent would not know the default behavior regarding inactive rule sets or how to request them.
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 only one parameter, include_inactive, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so an agent cannot infer whether inactive rule sets are shown, hidden, or controlled by the boolean.
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?
Description states the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'rule sets', and scopes it to prebuilt and custom rule sets available to the organization. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_rule_set, create_rule_set, and list_evaluations.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The list phrasing and sibling names imply this is for enumerating rule sets rather than creating or evaluating, but no exclusion conditions or alternative routing are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.