List visible nine-slices, optionally filtered by template or part.
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_nineslices"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| partId | No | ||
| onlyCustom | No | ||
| templateId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, non-destructive, read-only local operation, so the description's extra value is the word 'visible': it tells the agent that some nine-slices are hidden (likely built-in/default ones) and will not be returned. It adds nothing about pagination, the default value of limit, or how onlyCustom changes the result set.
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?
It is a single well-formed sentence with no filler; it states the verb and resource first and the optional narrowing second. Its terseness is close to a problem, but that shortfall is better captured under completeness than under conciseness.
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?
This tool takes five parameters, all non-required and undocumented in the schema, and it has no output schema, so the description should carry more of the load. Being silent on the type, limit, and onlyCustom semantics, and on the shape of the returned list, leaves the agent guessing on a meaningful part of the calling contract.
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 must carry the burden of explaining the five parameters, and it explains only two: templateId and partId. The meanings of type (untyped string and especially ambiguous), limit (maximum 100), and onlyCustom are left entirely undetermined, even though onlyCustom meaningfully changes what counts as a result.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List nine-slices'), which separates this tool from the get_nineslice, create_nineslice, and update_nineslice siblings. What it omits is an explicit statement that it returns a collection rather than one item and a pointer to the get_* tool; still, the 'List' verb carries most of that distinction.
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?
"visibly" narrows the result set, and "optionally filtered by template or part" tells the agent that the filters are optional and should not be applied blindly. The description does not address when to use this tool instead of get_nineslice, get_default_nineslice, or list_templates for lookups, so the guidance is only implied.
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.