Zoning Signal

List Patterns

list_patterns

Read-onlyIdempotent

List every named pattern in the Pattern Atlas. A named pattern is a coined recurring structure observed across multiple jurisdictions or multiple meetings (e.g., "The Quiet Revolution"). Returns slug, display name, canonical pattern URL (/patterns/{slug}, the DefinedTerm canonical home as of Phase 9), lifecycle stage, horizon, confidence, exhibits count, spatial scope, related briefs, and the voxel_lead. Use as the discovery surface for the Pattern Atlas; pair with describe_pattern for full dossier detail. Phase 12 — renamed from current_named_patterns to align with the canonical content-type vocabulary (loader: getAllContent("pattern"); URLs: /patterns/{slug}; describe tool: describe_pattern).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`patterns`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the main behavioral expectation is that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds helpful context about the return fields and version tracking (Phase 12), though it doesn't detail any empty-state behavior or rate-limiting implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed yet efficient, with front-loaded purpose and usage context. It could trim the explicit version note and schema loader comment, but overall each sentence adds value and no word is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, a complete output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage context, return fields, and pairing advice. It leaves no gaps for an agent to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing left to clarify. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists all named patterns in the Pattern Atlas, distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_pattern (which provides details on a single pattern) and list_* siblings. It specifies the tool returns a defined set of fields, making the resource and action unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly calls this the 'discovery surface' for the Pattern Atlas and suggests pairing with describe_pattern for full details, giving agents a clear when-to-use guide. It also notes it was renamed from current_named_patterns, which helps avoid confusion with legacy terminology.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Zoning Signal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct by resource type (describe/list pairs for places, corridors, entities, patterns, watches), but list_meetings and meeting_index overlap heavily—the former explicitly says it has the same response shape as the latter, differing only in required parameters. That near-duplication creates ambiguity about which to call.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (describe_*, list_*), with get_track_record and submit_agent_feedback also verb-led. However, meeting_index is a bare noun phrase and semantic_search is a noun compound, deviating from the otherwise strong pattern.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the server is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the count is justified by the many content types (six primary artifact types each with list+describe, plus meta tools). One could argue meeting_index is redundant, but the overall scope feels reasonable.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle for all named content types (places, corridors, patterns, entities, meetings, watches) with discovery and description. However, the corpus repeatedly references 'briefs' (e.g., related briefs, semantic_search returns 'named-pattern briefs') yet there is no list_briefs or describe_brief tool, leaving an obvious content gap.

Resources

Need Help?