navig_runtime_list_nodesList registered NAVIG Nodes with their capabilities and last-seen state, using status filters to identify available or offline nodes.
List registered NAVIG Nodes with their capabilities and last-seen state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status: online, offline, etc. |
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope ('registered' nodes) and return contents ('capabilities and last-seen state'), but it does not disclose pagination, auth requirements, rate limits, or freshness behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, 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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and return. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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 low-complexity list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It states the resource and return fields, and the schema covers filtering details. The only notable omission is usage guidance relative to siblings, though that is scored separately.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, 'status', is fully documented in the input schema. The description does not mention or add meaning to that parameter, so it provides no value beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description adds nothing extra.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('registered NAVIG Nodes'), and it adds return details ('capabilities and last-seen state'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as navig_list_hosts, navig_list_apps, or navig_runtime_list_receipts. The resource name is specific, but no direct contrast is provided.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related sibling tools like navig_runtime_list_receipts or navig_runtime_trust_score. An agent must infer its usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.