Lists every MySQL audit rule with its ID, title, and default severity so you can see which checks are available before reviewing migrations or queries.
List every rule this server checks, with its id, title and default severity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'list' implies a non-mutating read and 'every rule' implies full enumeration rather than pagination, which is useful. However, it says nothing about ordering, whether custom or server-default rules are both included, or any auth/scope requirements for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the action and followed immediately by the payload the caller receives. Every clause 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 zero-parameter, read-only enumeration with an output schema that already documents the return shape, the description covers the essentials. Minor gaps remain around scope (all rules vs. configured rules) and ordering, which matter for a rule catalog an agent will index into.
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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly frames the call as taking no filtering arguments, consistent with the empty 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List every rule this server checks') and even previews the returned fields (id, title, default severity), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling explain_rule, which is the obvious adjacency, 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling explain_rule or any review_* tool, but the description never says so. There is no when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative, leaving routing between list_rules and explain_rule to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.