familia_list_householdsUse this when the user asks which Familia households, families, or shared boards are available. Includes member names and user ids for assigning tasks or plans. Do not use for listing tasks, plans, or calendar events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| households | Yes | ||
| currentUser | No | ||
| configuration | Yes | ||
| selectedHouseholdId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that the result includes member names and user ids, which helps an agent know what to expect and how the data can be used for assigning tasks or plans.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the exact use case, the second adds content expectations, and the third gives a clear negative boundary. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?
For a parameterless read-only list tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, what it returns, and what it should not be used for. Nothing important is missing.
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 description does not need to explain any parameter behavior. The schema coverage is complete and there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies.
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 action ('list') and a clear resource ('Familia households, families, or shared boards'), and clarifies what the response includes. It also sets boundaries by explicitly saying it is not for tasks, plans, or calendar events, which distinguishes it from the many task- and plan-related sibling tools.
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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when the user asks which Familia households... are available') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use for listing tasks, plans, or calendar events'). This gives an agent clear routing guidance without having to infer when the tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.