List visible tilesets, 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_tilesets"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The only added behavioral detail is the word 'visible', which hints at permission-based scoping but never explains it; nothing is said about ordering, paging, or what a tileset record contains. Three of the five parameters go unmentioned.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity stems partly from omitting information rather than from tight editing.
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?
Five optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema mean the agent gets almost no help building a call. The description does not explain the 'visible' scoping, the meaning of 'type', or what default behavior occurs when no filters are supplied.
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, yet it only nods at the template/part filters and says nothing about 'type', 'limit', or 'onlyCustom'. The schema itself is opaque ('type' is an unconstrained string, partId is an unusual $ref), so the missing parameter meaning is a real gap rather than a redundancy.
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 verb and resource ('List visible tilesets') and adds the filtering capability, which cleanly separates it from the singular 'get_tileset' sibling. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the list-vs-get distinction is unambiguous.
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' implies the discovery use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus 'get_tileset' for a known ID, and no guidance on pagination or when to raise the limit. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.