armorcode_list_exceptionsList open risk register exceptions to identify and manage unresolved security risks.
Open risk register exceptions.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "armorcode_list_exceptions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Open risk register exceptions,' without explaining the scope of exceptions returned, pagination, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.
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 only 4 words, making it extremely concise. However, it is too sparse, lacking any detail that would genuinely aid an agent. While front-loaded, it does not justify its brevity with sufficient information, so it earns a moderate score.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is barely complete. It identifies the resource but fails to describe the return format, typical output, or any contextual details that would help an agent understand what to expect. The low complexity does not excuse the lack of informative content.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.
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 'Open risk register exceptions' clearly indicates the tool operates on exceptions, which aligns with the name and title. It implies a list operation, distinguishing it from siblings like 'armorcode_get_exception' that likely fetch a single exception. However, it could be more explicit by stating 'List exceptions' rather than 'Open.'
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are siblings like 'armorcode_get_exception' and 'armorcode_create_exception,' but the description does not differentiate usage contexts, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.