List your CalderFlow charts (id, title, type, share URL), newest first.
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": "list_charts"
}
}| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses result ordering ('newest first') and the shape of each item, and 'your' implies per-user scoping. However, it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether all charts are returned in one call — a material gap for a list tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 tight sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and the return fields in a compact parenthetical. Every element earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the name.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the fields returned and their order. It falls short only on list-specific mechanics — pagination, caps, and total-count behavior — which an agent needs to call a listing tool safely at scale.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The parenthetical field list adds useful information about the response rather than duplicating a schema that is empty anyway.
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 ('List') and resource ('your CalderFlow charts') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, title, type, share URL) plus ordering. It is clearly a collection-read operation, distinguishable from get_chart and the create_* tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
'List your ... charts' implies the enumeration use case, and 'newest first' hints at discovery of recent items, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-get_chart guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.
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.