Minds: Synthetic Market Research

List Research Methods

list_research_methods

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists Minds research methods with availability, complexity, executable status, and fallback metadata. Results distinguish currently executable methods from experimental or planned methods.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`includePlanned`	No	Include methods that are currently planned/non-executable so the model can explain framework compatibility. Availability is dynamic; only entries with executable:true can run.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`methods`	No	Research methods and whether each can run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "methods": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Research methods and whether each can run."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 25, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed1 schema field changedJul 31, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / includePlanned / description

Previous value: -"Include planned methods such as Conjoint so the model can explain framework compatibility. Only entries with executable:true can run."New value: +"Include methods that are currently planned/non-executable so the model can explain framework compatibility. Availability is dynamic; only entries with executable:true can run."

First observedJul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value beyond annotations by specifying the output's distinguishing dimensions (availability, complexity, executable status, fallback metadata) and the executable vs. experimental/planned distinction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler: the first identifies the resource and the fields returned, and the second adds the key categorical distinction. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with one optional, well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It communicates the purpose, the returned metadata dimensions, and the dynamic executability distinction without over-explaining.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the includePlanned parameter is fully self-documenting in the schema. The description does not add detail about the parameter, but it is consistent with the schema's mention of planned/non-executable methods, 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('Minds research methods'), and adds the key distinguishing attributes: availability, complexity, executable status, and fallback metadata. It also clarifies that the method distinguishes executable from experimental/planned methods, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling list tools such as list_studies or list_audiences.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly conveys when to use the tool: when an agent needs to enumerate research methods and understand which are currently runnable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool appears to provide this same resource, so the usage context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Minds: Synthetic Market Research tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.