rootcause-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rc_list_learned_rules

Retrieve confirmed classification rules from root cause analysis. Filter by HFACS code or confidence threshold to find relevant learned rules.

Instructions

List all learned classification rules. Shows rules that have been confirmed by experts.

Tool call template

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": "rc_list_learned_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hfacs_code`	No	Optional: filter by specific HFACS code
`min_confidence`	No	Minimum confidence threshold

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that only rules confirmed by experts are returned, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on authorization, pagination, or complete behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations but is not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with two short sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every word earns its place, though a bit more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and two simple filters, the description is adequate but could mention return format, sorting, or pagination. It provides enough context for a basic list tool but lacks completeness for complex scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'learned classification rules', adding that these are confirmed by experts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rc_reload_rules or rc_suggest_hfacs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for viewing confirmed rules but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rc_get_hfacs_framework or rc_get_session. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.