list_toolsCatalog of interactive SE tools with REST path hints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| tools | Yes | ||
| api_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / tools / items / properties / binds_toAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "construct": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "state": {
+ "enum": [
+ "bound",
+ "no-runnable-tools",
+ "no-funnel-row"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "step": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "step_name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "tension": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "tool": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool",
+ "state",
+ "step",
+ "step_name",
+ "construct",
+ "tension"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / tools / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "slug",
- "name",
- "pill",
- "description",
- "restPath",
- "productHome"
-]New value: +[
+ "slug",
+ "name",
+ "pill",
+ "description",
+ "restPath",
+ "productHome",
+ "binds_to"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'REST path hints' detail, which hints at return content, but does not disclose pagination, formatting, or scope limitations. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich; the description adds modest contextual value.
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, short sentence that is immediately readable and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word matters: 'Catalog', 'interactive SE tools', and 'REST path hints'. There is no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.
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?
Given that the tool has no parameters, is read-only (per annotations), and has an output schema (which presumably describes the returned catalog), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the general purpose. However, the phrase 'REST path hints' is ambiguous without further explanation, and the relationship to the sibling tools is not clarified. Still, the output schema likely covers return details.
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 the input schema (100% coverage) leaves nothing undocumented. The description correctly avoids any parameter discussion, and the baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is expected from the description.
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 clearly identifies the resource as 'interactive SE tools' and indicates the action is listing/cataloging. It adds a distinctive detail ('REST path hints') that helps distinguish it from the library-related siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly use the word 'list' and the meaning of 'interactive SE tools' and 'REST path hints' could be more precise.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling names imply a different domain (library books), but no explicit comparison, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are provided. The description alone does not help an agent decide between this and similar listing tools.
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.