List the generic data sources defined in adapters.yaml for your deployment, helping you identify available sources to query during root cause analysis.
List the sources declared in adapters.yaml for this deployment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list' without specifying read-only nature, return format, or side effects. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose with no filler. It is concise and structured exactly as needed for a zero-parameter tool.
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 listing tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate. It does not mention limitations or clarify the exact meaning of 'sources,' but given the low complexity, this is acceptable. The output schema likely covers return values.
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%. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter information needed. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none.
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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'sources declared in adapters.yaml', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the verb 'list' vs 'query' suggests a read-only enumeration, which is sufficient for purpose clarity.
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 like query_generic_source. The description merely states what it does without any context on selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.