MCP-ADAPTER

list_tools

Browse an application's documented tools and commands by software name, with optional category or kind filters, returning compact catalog rows.

Instructions

List catalog entries for an application, optionally filtered by category substring and kind.

Returns compact rows (name, kind, category, description). Use describe_tool for usage and examples.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "software": "<software>"
    },
    "name": "list_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`category`	No
`software`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ('compact rows') and a non-obvious filtering behavior ('category substring'), but omits pagination behavior, permissions, and read-only nature.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose and main filtering behavior are front-loaded, followed by a concise note on return format and the next tool to use.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema covers return values, and the description is adequate for basic listing. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, gaps around pagination and the required software parameter leave the agent without enough context to use the tool confidently in all cases.

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

Parameters2/5

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 all five parameters. It partially covers category substring and kind, and implies software via 'for an application,' but leaves the required software parameter unnamed and completely omits limit and offset.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List catalog entries for an application,' with optional filters. It distinguishes itself from describe_tool by redirecting usage there, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_tools or list_software.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It only says 'Use describe_tool for usage and examples,' which is downstream guidance rather than when-to-use-this-tool guidance. There is no explicit comparison to alternatives like search_tools or list_software, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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