get_list_infoReports the OFAC SDN list version in use, including entry count, source, and download date, so you can verify screening data freshness.
Reports which copy of the OFAC SDN list the server is using: number of entries, where it came from and when it was downloaded.
| 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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance beyond that by disclosing exactly what state is reported — dataset size, provenance, and download timestamp — which tells the agent this reflects server-side list version rather than any query result.
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 the key fact (which list copy) front-loaded and the three returned attributes appended after a colon. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by naming the three fields. It stops short of format details (e.g., timestamp timezone or entry-count type), but for a zero-parameter status tool this is close to sufficient.
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 no parameters, so there is no schema semantics to add; the baseline applies. The description appropriately spends its words on the response content instead of inventing inputs.
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 ('Reports which copy of the OFAC SDN list the server is using') and enumerates the returned facts (entry count, origin, download time). This is plainly distinct from the name-screening siblings, which query entries rather than describe the loaded dataset.
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 a metadata/freshness check, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before screening, to verify staleness) or that it is not a screening tool. No alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.