List nodes with status and connection endpoints.
Args: project_id: Optional project ID to filter by (e.g., PR-123-456-789). If omitted, returns all nodes in the organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as the scope of results ('all nodes in the organization' when no filter) and the contents of the response ('status and connection endpoints'). This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations without contradicting the annotations.
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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The Args section is structured and uses a clear, minimal format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, filter behavior, and scope. The presence of an output schema means return value details need not be in the description. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It fully explains project_id as an optional filter, provides a format example ('PR-123-456-789'), and describes the default behavior when omitted. This is complete and adds significant value over the bare schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('nodes') and details the included information ('status and connection endpoints'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_node (single node) and list_projects (different resource), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to list nodes, with optional project filtering. It explains the behavior when project_id is omitted (returns all nodes in the organization). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the highest tier.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: nodes, projects, docs, pricing, status, org, faucet, and contact. There is no overlap between list/get, create/update/delete, or the doc search vs fetch tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_node, get_project, list_nodes, update_node, delete_project). Underscore separator and lowercase are used throughout with no mixed conventions.
At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose within the platform's domain. The count is appropriate for a platform with project, node, documentation, pricing, status, and faucet features.
The tool set provides full CRUD for both projects and nodes, plus deployment options, pricing, docs search/retrieval, platform status, organization info, testnet faucet, and a contact channel. There are no obvious dead ends for the workflows the server advertises.
