list_diagramsList your company's threat-model diagrams (id, name, last update), newest first, optionally filtered by part of the name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional: part of the diagram name | |
| limit | No | Max diagrams to return (default 20, max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the schema: results are scoped to the caller's company and sorted newest first. It does not describe pagination/truncation behavior, keeping it short of a 5.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then scoping, return fields, ordering, and the optional filter. No wasted words.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields (id, name, last update) and ordering, which compensates. Minor gap: nothing about total counts or how the limit interacts with large result sets, so an agent has to assume truncation.
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 100%: both 'name' (part of the name) and 'limit' (default 20, max 100) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the name filter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List') and resource ('threat-model diagrams'), scopes it to the caller's company, and names the exact fields returned (id, name, last update) plus ordering (newest first). An agent can distinguish this from sibling get_diagram_summary which returns a single diagram's detail.
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?
Usage is implied by 'optionally filtered by part of the name' and the newest-first ordering, which signals a browsing/discovery use case. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_diagram_summary or other listing siblings, nor any exclusion. Baseline implied-usage score.
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.