List visible reusable SVG building-block pieces, optionally filtered by template or part class.
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_pieces"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| custom | 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 closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only "visible" and "reusable" pieces are returned, but says nothing about result ordering, default page size, or pagination behavior.
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 well-formed sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded before the optional filters. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure efficiency.
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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin: an agent cannot tell what a piece object contains, what the default limit is, or how paginationIndex should be used. It needs to do substantially more work given the schema carries no descriptive text.
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% and the description only accounts for two of the five parameters (templateId, partClassId). limit, custom, and paginationIndex are named nowhere, so an agent must infer their meaning purely from property names and constraints.
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+resource ("List ... pieces") and qualifies the resource as "visible reusable SVG building-block pieces," which separates it from get_piece and from list_parts/list_templates. Sibling differentiation is only implicit, but the resource is unmistakable.
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 template or part class" implies when the filters matter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_piece, list_parts, or list_part_classes, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
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.