list_rule_packsLists installed rule packs. Use them to share versioned mock, rewrite, and redaction rules across machines or teams.
List installed rule packs. A rule pack is a versioned bundle of mocks/rewrites/redaction rules — useful for sharing a known-good configuration across machines or teams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds useful domain context (what a rule pack contains, and why one would exist), but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or whether uninstalled/remote packs are excluded. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact definition of the domain concept. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
This is a simple, zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description's burden is light. It explains the resource concept well enough for correct invocation, though it stops short of describing what the returned pack list looks like or how it relates to the install/export/delete siblings.
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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description contradicts the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List installed rule packs') and then defines the resource domain ('a versioned bundle of mocks/rewrites/redaction rules'), which meaningfully separates it from siblings like list_mock_rules or list_rewrite_rules. It never explicitly names an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implied by 'list installed rule packs' — an agent can infer it should call this when it needs the current set of packs before install/export/delete operations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no routing to siblings such as install_rule_pack or export_rule_pack.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.