Lists saved credential handles, labels, and origins without exposing passwords, so agents can choose which stored login to use.
列出已保存的凭据（只有 handle/label/origin，没有密码）。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "cred_list"
}
}| 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, and it does disclose the key trait that only handle/label/origin are returned and no passwords. However, it says nothing about whether this is a safe read, any permission/auth requirements, or whether the list is complete or 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?
A single, tightly written sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return-scope caveat immediately following. No wasted words.
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 usefully compensates by naming the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs. It could still say more about ordering, completeness, or auth, keeping it short of 5.
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 per the rules the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate.
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 (saved credentials), and clarifies the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling cred_fill which uses rather than lists credentials. An agent can identify the tool immediately.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: listing credentials is naturally the way to discover handles for cred_fill, but the description never names that alternative or the condition for using this tool. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.