list_noodlesThe design systems, grouped by family, with what each is inspired by and how it looks and moves.
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_noodles"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | No |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the result structure (grouped by family, with inspiration and appearance/motion), which is useful, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, and whether any auth or limits apply. For a plain list tool this is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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 tight sentence with no filler; the grouping and content details are front-loaded. It loses a point only because the sentence fragment lacks an explicit action verb, slightly softening the statement of what the tool does.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional enum param, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the output grouping and fields. It still leaves the parameter's filtering semantics and any usage context unstated, so it is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'family' parameter. It does not: 'grouped by family' hints at grouping but gives no indication that 'family' is an optional enum filter, nor how the enum values (Minimal, Flat, Pixel, etc.) behave in the response.
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 identifies the resource ('The design systems'), states how they are grouped ('by family'), and outlines the content ('what each is inspired by and how it looks and moves'). However, it never differentiates this from siblings like find_noodles or get_noodle, leaving the agent to infer which listing/search tool to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of an alternative tool. The description is purely descriptive of the output, so the agent gets no routing help against find_noodles or get_noodle.
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.