list_locationsList safe Location summaries and virtual floor ranges using the connected Google OAuth account. Exact addresses are never included in this catalog.
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_locations"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: it requires the connected Google OAuth account and it excludes exact addresses. It does not state pagination behavior, ordering, or error conditions, so behavioral coverage is partial.
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, both front-loaded and purposeful: the first states what is listed and under what auth, the second states the privacy boundary. Nothing is wasted.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: source (Google OAuth account), content ('summaries and virtual floor ranges'), and a key privacy constraint. It could say more about the shape of the returned summaries, but the omission is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 parameter semantics carry no risk; the baseline is 4. The description adds a scope note ('safe summaries') that contextualizes what the empty input produces.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Location summaries and virtual floor ranges'), making the operation clear without opening the schema. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_floor_availability', which sounds adjacent, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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 guidance about when to use this catalog versus 'get_floor_availability' or other listing tools. The description only describes content, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name alone.
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.