Lists configured IPT servers with their name, URL, default status, credential presence, and read-only mode, without exposing secure credentials. Use this to identify available IPT connections for management tasks.
The IPT servers this MCP can talk to (name, URL, default, whether it has credentials, read-only). Never shows credentials.
| 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?
The description provides a useful behavioral caveat: 'Never shows credentials.' With no annotations present, this partially fulfills the transparency burden, but the description does not clarify side effects, potential errors, or the exact output format beyond the parenthetical field list.
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 focused sentence conveys the tool's purpose, the relevant fields, and an important security constraint without filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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 list operation, the description covers the resource, the returned fields, and the credential-exclusion behavior. It is sufficiently complete, though it does not explicitly state that the result is a list/array or describe empty or error cases.
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, so schema and description have no parameter semantics to clarify. The description instead explains what the returned entries contain, which is more than the empty schema alone provides.
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 identifies the resource as the IPT servers this MCP can talk to and enumerates the returned fields (name, URL, default, credentials presence, read-only). It is distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_datasets and list_managed_resources, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.
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 use case is implied: an agent would call this to discover which IPT servers are available and their basic properties. However, the text does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, and sibling differentiation must be inferred from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.