List all compliance Q&A titles from China's GB/T 47746—2026 customer-service standard, optionally filtered by AI service or enterprise knowledge base cluster.
列出全部合规问答的标题清单。
Args:
cluster: 可选，按集群过滤。可选值 ai-service-standard(AI客服国标) / enterprise-knowledge-base(企业知识库)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'all' scope and the cluster filter semantics, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or behavior when cluster is omitted. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose before parameter details. Every element earns its place.
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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose and the filter parameter. It does not explain when to prefer this over sibling tools or what 'all' means when cluster is omitted, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.
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 carries the full burden for the single parameter. It explains that cluster is optional, is used for filtering, and explicitly lists the allowed values ai-service-standard and enterprise-knowledge-base. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists the title list of all compliance Q&A entries, and the cluster filter clarifies scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_answers or get_answer, but the listing action is clearly different from search/get operations. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 implies usage when the agent needs the full inventory of compliance Q&A titles, optionally filtered by cluster. It provides the exact allowed cluster values but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose list_questions over search_answers or get_answer. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.