Retrieve Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN policy lists such as app, AS path, color, community, and prefix lists, optionally filtered by list type.
List policy lists (app, aspath, color, community, data-prefix, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list_type | No | List type, e.g. app, aspath, color, community, dataprefix, dataipv6prefix, policer, prefix, site, sla, tloc, vpn, zone (omit for all lists) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not state permissions, pagination behavior, output structure, or any other operational detail beyond the bare purpose.
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 short sentence with the main action front-loaded. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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 low-complexity one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Still, it does not clarify the tool's relationship to similarly named siblings or provide any behavioral context, leaving some ambiguity an agent must resolve elsewhere.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single list_type parameter is already documented with examples and the 'omit for all lists' behavior. The description repeats a subset of those examples but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List policy lists') and adds examples of list types, so the basic purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as list_policies, list_policy_groups, or list_policy_definitions, which is a meaningful gap in a dense sibling set.
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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_policies or list_policy_groups. The schema does indicate that omitting list_type returns all lists, but the description itself offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.