explore_designsLists 8B site designs: the look, the structure and the kinds of business each one suits. Use it to choose the design for the user's site.
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": "explore_designs"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context that the result is a descriptive catalog (look/structure/business fit), but says nothing about ordering, count, or how designs are identified.
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, no filler, and the resource plus its contents are front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Every clause carries information.
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-param, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, content, and intended use. It would be complete at 5 if it distinguished itself from get_design_brief, the sibling an agent is most likely to reach for instead.
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 there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly presents it as an unfiltered enumeration rather than implying hidden arguments.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('8B site designs') and even characterizes the content of each design — look, structure, business fit. It stops short of naming or contrasting the siblings generate_site and get_design_brief, so 5 is not earned.
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?
'Use it to choose the design for the user's site' gives an implied trigger, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of how this differs from get_design_brief, which is the most likely confusable sibling.
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.