list_formatsWhich picture and document formats can be converted to which, and the limits of this key (files per day, files left today, largest file in MB).
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_formats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
No schema history has been recorded yet.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them by disclosing that the response includes quota state (files per day, files left today, largest file in MB). It does not explain whether the limits are per-key, when they reset, or whether exhausted quota changes tool behavior, which keeps it below 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?
One compact sentence with no filler, leading with the primary return value (format conversion matrix) and following with the secondary quota data. Nothing redundant given the empty schema and single read-only annotation.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does list both payloads (format pairs and key limits). It stops short of describing the response shape, such as whether limits and formats are returned together or how formats are grouped, which leaves a small gap for an agent parsing the result.
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 of 4 applies and there is no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and nothing is missing on this dimension.
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 states concretely what the tool returns: the mapping of which picture and document formats convert to which, plus key limits (daily files, remaining files, max MB). That is specific enough to separate it from the convert_* siblings, which perform conversions rather than report capabilities, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/pre-flight call before invoking convert_document or convert_image. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or that it should precede a conversion attempt.
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.