List function-object output files under postProcessing/ for an OpenFOAM case and return their column names, so you can inspect available result data.
List function-object output files under postProcessing/ with their column names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case | Yes | Case name in the workspace (e.g. 'pitzDaily') or an absolute path inside an allowed root. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are function-object output files and that column names are surfaced, which is useful, but it says nothing about ordering, empty-result behavior, or return shape beyond column names.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource scope and the column-name detail both earn their 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 simple read-only listing tool with a fully documented single parameter, this is nearly complete. There is no output schema, so a brief note on what the returned entries look like (paths, empty case) would have closed the remaining gap.
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 100%, so the single 'case' parameter (name or absolute path in an allowed root) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (function-object output files under postProcessing/) plus an extra detail (their column names). It clearly distinguishes its scope from a content-reading sibling like read_postprocessing, but it never names that sibling or otherwise contrasts itself 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?
The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer that this is a discovery step preceding read_postprocessing, and nothing addresses the overlapping list_files tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.