List the available design systems with one-line descriptions.
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_design_systems"
}
}| 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 burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating enumeration and 'one-line descriptions' discloses the return granularity, which is useful, but nothing is said about result size, ordering, pagination, or whether unauthenticated access is permitted.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first, and the return-format detail is appended compactly.
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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns well enough to call it correctly. A brief note that results are unfiltered/complete would close the remaining gap, but the definition is sufficient as written.
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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there is none to add, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.
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 available design systems') and adds a hint about the return shape ('one-line descriptions'). It reads as distinct from the sibling get_design_system, but it never explicitly contrasts the two, so the differentiation is only implicit in the verb.
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 list-vs-get distinction is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery/browse call before fetching a specific system. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_design_system, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
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.