Read only. Lists the step (node) types that have preset default inputs, outputs and parameters, with those defaults. It does not run, add or change any step.
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": "node_list_configs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description reinforces that it does not run, add, or change steps and adds that defaults are included, but it does not describe the return structure or any pagination or limits.
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 three short sentences and leads with the read-only constraint. Every sentence adds relevant information without repetition or filler.
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?
This is a simple zero-parameter read tool, and the description explains what is listed and that defaults are included. Without an output schema, more detail about the exact return shape could help, but the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation.
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, so there are no parameter meanings to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.
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: lists step (node) types that have preset default inputs, outputs, and parameters, including those defaults. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling node_list_types tool.
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 implies usage by saying the tool lists node types with defaults and does not run, add, or change steps. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name an alternative such as node_list_types or node_get_documentation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.