Fetch single sign-on links from the Aeza API, enabling an agent to list available SSO login endpoints.
Get sso links GET /sso
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": "sso_get_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond them – "GET /sso" merely restates that this is a read. No pagination, result-set size, or scoping behavior is disclosed.
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 short lines with the verb-and-resource statement front-loaded and no filler. The trailing endpoint path is marginally useful for agents reasoning about the underlying API, but the whole text is terse to the point of under-specification rather than bloat.
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 list endpoint with rich annotations the bar is low, and the definition clears it minimally. However, with no output schema present, the description should say something about what an SSO link record contains or whether the list is paginated, and it does not.
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 baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.
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?
"Get sso links" names a verb and a resource, so the basic operation is inferable, but "sso links" is never defined and the plural form is the only cue that this is a collection read rather than the singular sibling sso_link. There is no explicit differentiation from that sibling.
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 when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing this over sso_link, and no prerequisites such as authentication or account scope. The only routing hint an agent gets is the implicit plural-versus-singular distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.