veriko_list_public_plansList public plans without an API key, so you can review available options before authenticating.
Lista los planes públicos sin requerir clave de API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond those: no API key is required for authentication, which is not captured by any structured field.
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?
A single sentence with no filler; the key distinguishing fact (no API key) is stated immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description plus structured fields give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. The one gap is routing relative to the sibling comparison tool, which is left unspecified.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies.
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 ('Lista') and resource ('planes públicos'), which tells an agent exactly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from the sibling veriko_get_public_plan_comparison, which also concerns public plans, so the agent gets no help choosing between them.
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 guidance and no mention of the sibling comparison tool as an alternative. The only implicit condition is that no API key is needed, which is a prerequisite, not a selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.