Lists contacts with their trust state—key confirmed, mail sealable, and unread—so later SENDER VERIFIED results are meaningful.
The buddy list with each contact's trust state: whether the key is confirmed, whether mail can be sealed to them, and what is unread. A key being on this list is the only thing that makes a later SENDER VERIFIED mean anything.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned trust information and its dependency for later SENDER VERIFIED semantics, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires auth, or how results are ordered/paginated.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed by a concise explanation of why the list matters. No wasted text.
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 tool with no output schema, the description gives the key returned contents and the semantic dependency. It could still clarify ordering, limits, or whether all buddies are always returned, but it is largely complete.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain.
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 buddy list and specifies the per-contact trust fields it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as gage_identity or gage_inbox, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 line about SENDER VERIFIED implies the list is relevant for trust/verification workflows, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives like gage_identity. Usage must be inferred from the semantic hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.