Listet alle Tracker (Erfassungslisten) des Nutzers samt ihrer Felder auf. Nutze das, um zu sehen, was schon existiert, bevor du Eintraege hinzufuegst.
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_trackers"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-only listing operation and includes field details, but it does not disclose output format, ordering, pagination, or potential authorization requirements.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and has no redundant or filler wording. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description states what is returned (trackers plus their fields) and gives usage context. It could mention return format or exceptions, but for a simple list tool it is adequately complete.
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 has zero parameters, and the description clarifies the default scope ('alle Tracker des Nutzers'), which adds meaning beyond the empty input schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 clearly states the tool lists all trackers (Erfassungslisten) of the user along with their fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_boards and get_tracker by specifying the resource (trackers) and the included detail (fields).
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 description explicitly says to use this tool to see what already exists before adding entries, giving a concrete use case. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for simple selection.
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.