List the bundled pack version/digest, supported regions and years, activity types, GWP set, and explicit MVP coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the list includes, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The depiction of output contents adds some transparency beyond the name alone.
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 a single, compact sentence that lists the returned information without unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it scannable and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, an output schema present), the description fully captures what the tool does and what it returns. It names all key attributes of the factor packs, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'factor packs' while enumerating the exact contents (version/digest, regions, years, activity types, GWP set, MVP coverage). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_factor_pack, which presumably fetches a single pack.
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 implies its usage for seeing available factor packs but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_factor_pack. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, but the name and sibling tools make the intended context reasonably clear.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: calculate, classify, describe, get, list, and verify. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case, making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
The server has 6 tools, which is well-scoped for its purpose of GHG inventory calculation and verification. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy.
The tool set covers the core workflows: calculating inventories, classifying activities, retrieving factor packs, listing available packs, and verifying results. No obvious gaps are present for the stated domain.