List visible parts, optionally filtered by style, part class, or template.
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_parts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| styleId | No | ||
| templateId | No | ||
| partClassId | No | ||
| paginationIndex | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the "visible" scoping qualifier, which is real added context, but says nothing about page size, result limits, ordering, or what happens when paginationIndex is omitted.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and the resource stated before the filters. Efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the gaps elsewhere rather than purely a virtue.
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 list tool with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage and an undescribed pagination parameter, the definition is too thin: an agent cannot tell how results are paged, what a "part" record contains, or how "visible" is determined at call time.
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 the full burden. It maps style, part class and template to their filters in plain language, but gives no syntax or format detail, and completely omits paginationIndex, leaving one of four parameters unexplained anywhere.
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 and resource ("List visible parts") plus the three filter axes, which is enough to distinguish it from get_part and the create_/update_ siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it lands just below the top.
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?
"optionally filtered by" implies the filters are optional, which correctly signals zero required parameters. However there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_part for a known ID, no mention of pagination strategy, and no statement about what "visible" excludes.
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.