list_sourcesShow which benefit databases are queried, their terms pages, and coverage, so you can explain an answer's source or why a store has no result.
Show which existing benefit databases this server asks, their terms page and what they cover. Use to explain where an answer came from or why a store has no result.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the result (databases, terms page, coverage), which is useful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, or rate limits. Adequate but incomplete for an annotation-free tool.
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 tight sentences, with the content description front-loaded and the usage cue second. No filler or redundancy.
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, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, the description covers both what is returned and when to reach for it. Only minor gaps remain, e.g. freshness or any auth requirement for reading source metadata.
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 the schema imposes nothing to explain. Baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.
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 ("Show") and resource (the benefit databases this server queries), plus what each entry contains (terms page, coverage). It is clearly distinct from the wallet/best_way_to_pay siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger: "Use to explain where an answer came from or why a store has no result." That is a concrete when-to-use condition. It does not name when-not to use it or point to an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.