list_indicesRetrieve all four abliteration.org alignment indices—DAI, Freedom Velocity, Weaponization, and F2W Latency—in one call. Verify measured before using any value as a finding.
All four flagship indices at once (GET /indices): DAI, Freedom Velocity, Weaponization and F2W Latency. Check measured before treating a value as a finding. Cost: 20 credits.
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, open-world), so the description's real added value is the cost disclosure ('20 credits') and the endpoint path (GET /indices), plus the caveat that a value may not be a valid finding until `measured` is checked. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though return shape/pagination remains unstated.
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?
Front-loaded with what is returned, then the interpretation caveat, then cost. No sentence is filler; it is tightly scoped to the three things an agent needs.
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?
With no output schema present the description must carry return-value context, and it does name the four indices and the `measured` field. It stops short of describing the value shape or units, which leaves a small gap for a tool whose whole purpose is returning index values.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail.
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, names the exact payload (DAI, Freedom Velocity, Weaponization, F2W Latency), and the 'All four ... at once' phrasing implicitly contrasts with the singular get_index sibling. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.
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?
It gives a result-interpretation rule ('Check `measured` before treating a value as a finding') which is genuinely useful guidance, but never states when to use this tool vs get_index for a single index. The contrast with the singular sibling is implied by 'at once' rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.