list_componentsList the installable Cronus UI components (registry items of type 'registry:ui'). Returns each component's name, a readable title, its npm and registry dependencies, and the npx cronus-ui add <name> command to install it.
| 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?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and closed-world hint, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond those annotations by disclosing the per-item return shape (name, title, npm/registry dependencies, install command), which matters since there is no output schema. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences with zero filler: the scope/verb are front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers targeted return-field details. Every clause earns its place.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields per item. A brief pointer to sibling tools (e.g., get_install_command or search_registry) would fully complete routing, but nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.
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 schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool applies; the description correctly confirms this is an unfiltered, overall list.
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 installable Cronus UI components', narrowed by a precise type qualifier ('registry:ui'). The type constraint distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_catalog and list_blocks, so an agent can tell what this enumerates without opening other schemas.
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 word 'installable' implies this is the discovery entry point for components one can add, but the description never names sibling alternatives (search_registry, get_component, get_install_command) or states when not to use it. Usage context is implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.