List signed polling job capacity records from the configured registry to check available capacities. Filter by capability, network, or age for targeted results.
List signed polling job capacity records from the configured registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability | No | ||
| network_id | No | ||
| max_age_hours | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does 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. 'List' implies a read operation and 'configured registry' identifies the source, but the description does not explain how the optional filters behave, what the returned records contain, whether any registry-specific authorization is needed, or what 'signed' means in this context.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It identifies the resource and source but omits filtering behavior, result shape, and any operational constraints, so an agent may not know how to correctly set the optional parameters.
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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters. The parameter names ('capability', 'network_id', 'max_age_hours') give some hint, but the description adds no semantic detail about formats, allowed values, defaults, or how they combine.
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 ('List') and a specific resource ('signed polling job capacity records'), plus the source ('configured registry'). It is clear enough to distinguish this from the write-oriented sibling rynmesh_register_job_capacity, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.
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 purpose implies when to use the tool: when you need to view existing polling job capacity records. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative sibling should be chosen instead, leaving the choice mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.