List the calculators already approved and published into the Pro Workspace, so you can fork one as a starting point.
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_published"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the filter (approved/published only) but says nothing about return shape, ordering, whether results are paged or truncated, or permissions needed — gaps that matter little for a zero-parameter read but are still undisclosed.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then supplies the motivation. No filler, no redundancy, easily parsed at a glance.
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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (published calculators) and why you'd call it. Only minor details — result fields or whether an empty list is possible when nothing is published — are left unstated.
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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the only implicit filter is publication status rather than any caller-supplied argument.
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 the calculators') with a clear scope qualifier ('already approved and published into the Pro Workspace'). The scope wording implicitly separates it from list_sandbox, though it never names that sibling; an agent can still infer the distinction from 'published' vs. sandbox semantics.
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?
The trailing clause 'so you can fork one as a starting point' gives a concrete reason to call it and points toward fork_calculator as the follow-up. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., list_sandbox for unpublished work), leaving the agent to infer exclusions.
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.