list_presetsList the six built-in business presets (excavation and septic, plumbing and drain, heating and cooling, landscaping and snow, roofing, and a general small services business) with every default input in the exact field names a simulation accepts, and the revenue, costs and profit each makes at its own averages. Static reference: no network access.
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Static reference: no network access' and adds that results include precomputed averages (revenue, costs, profit), which is behavioral context beyond 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?
Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the trailing 'Static reference: no network access' fragment is a useful, cheap addition. The parenthetical enumeration of all six presets is long but arguably earns its place by telling the agent the exact coverage.
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 and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it names the presets, the default inputs, and the computed metrics returned. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and instead describes the shape of what comes back.
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 ('the six built-in business presets'), then enumerates exactly which presets and what data accompanies them (default inputs, revenue, costs, profit). An agent can distinguish this from simulate_cash_year and rank_levers without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'in the exact field names a simulation accepts' hints this is a reference to consult before simulating, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no sibling is named. 'Static reference' gives some context but not routing guidance.
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.