Retrieve a paginated list of public certificate and attestation records. Use limit and offset to control the number of rows returned for audit or verification purposes.
List public certificate / attestation rows
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, default limit, ordering, or whether results are public/unauthenticated despite the 'public' prefix.
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 front-loaded phrase with no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient prose.
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?
A paginated list tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly (e.g., default/max limit of 100, offset semantics, result ordering).
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 limit and offset have no documented meaning anywhere. The description does not mention pagination at all, failing to compensate for the complete coverage gap.
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 (List) and resource (public certificate / attestation rows), and the singular sibling veya_public_get_certificate plus veya_anchor_pq_attestation make the plural-list scope distinguishable. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the verb distinguishes it well enough.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus veya_public_get_certificate or veya_public_list_agents, no prerequisites, and no indication of what kinds of certificates/attestations appear. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.