oddsky

list_classes

Lists valid Strange Stars explanation classes, optionally filtered by case, so hypotheses use an accepted category name.

Instructions

The Strange Stars explanation classes. Hypotheses must use one of these names.

Tool call template

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_classes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`case`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only enumeration, what the output contains, or how the optional case parameter affects the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences and has no filler. The first sentence is a fragment, but the important constraint is stated immediately and nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple enumeration tool, the description still omits what the returned classes look like and what the optional case argument does. With no output schema and no annotations, those gaps leave an agent unsure how to use the parameter or interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage and the description never mentions the single parameter, "case." The meaning of filtering by case is left entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource as the Strange Stars explanation classes and states the key constraint that hypotheses must use one of these names. It is clear enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like list_cases, though it does not explicitly use a verb such as "list."

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "Hypotheses must use one of these names" gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: before assigning a class to a hypothesis. It does not name an alternative tool or explain when not to use it, but the usage condition is specific.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.