Retrieve a paginated inventory of MCP servers, filtered by name, severity, supplier, or library, to review discovered servers and support remediation workflows.
List inventoried MCP servers. Filters: name, severity, supplier, library.
page_size is capped at 100; page with the returned cursor for more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| library | No | ||
| severity | No | ||
| supplier | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the useful pagination behavior: page_size is capped at 100 and a returned cursor is used to page further. However, it omits other behavioral context such as read-only nature (only implied by "list"), authorization needs, and the shape of returned records.
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?
Three short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then the filter set, then the pagination constraint. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and the critical cap is stated explicitly.
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 6-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers filtering and pagination but not filter semantics or the fields returned. It is minimally adequate, with clear gaps an agent must resolve by experimentation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate; it names four filter parameters (name, severity, supplier, library) and documents the page_size cap. It does not explain matching semantics (exact vs partial, case sensitivity, expected format) or the cursor, leaving the parameters only partially specified.
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 ("List inventoried MCP servers"), and "inventoried" adds a scoping qualifier beyond the plain name. It is distinguishable from the singular sibling get_mcp_server, but the description does not explicitly name or differentiate against siblings.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives; the agent must infer that this is the list counterpart to get_mcp_server. The only contextual hint is the filter list, which implies a search/list use case but doesn't state it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.