List qualified certificates from USB, Keychain, or Windows stores, showing id, subject, and expiry for use in signing and submission.
Qualified certificates the local Storno Agent can use (USB tokens, Keychain / Windows store identities): id, subject, issuer, expiry. The id is what agent_sign_pdf and the submission tools need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.28Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only listing (no side effects), but does not explicitly state that it is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description focuses on content and usage, leaving the behavioral aspect somewhat implicit.
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, compact sentence that conveys the essential information: what the tool lists, the nature of the items, the key fields, and how the id is used. No redundant words or meandering structure.
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 lack of parameters and the straightforward listing nature, the description is self-contained and provides all necessary context. It explains the purpose and the relation to other tools, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it.
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 no parameters, and the schema is empty. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. There is no contradiction or missing explanation.
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 that this tool lists qualified certificates available to the Storno Agent, specifying the types (USB tokens, Keychain/Windows store identities) and the key output fields (id, subject, issuer, expiry). It also explains the practical use of the id for other tools, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 indicates this is a listing operation for certificates and that the ids are needed by signing/submission tools. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to call this (e.g., before signing or submitting, to obtain a certificate id).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.