Retrieve available film stocks and print papers with negative/positive type and still/cine use so you can choose materials for spectral film simulation.
List the film stocks and print papers available, with type (negative/positive) and use (still/cine).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the shape of what comes back (type: negative/positive, use: still/cine), which is genuinely useful, but it never states that the call is read-only with no side effects, nor whether the catalog is static or reflects current darkroom state.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields trailing as supporting detail. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it covers only two fields. It does not say what the stock identifiers look like or whether the names returned are the values that develop and export expect, which is the key downstream question for a zero-parameter catalog tool.
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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing parameter talk and instead spends its words on output semantics.
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 gives a specific verb ("List") and a concrete resource ("film stocks and print papers"), and even names the sub-fields exposed. It reads clearly against the action-oriented siblings (develop, frame, export, undo), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before develop or export, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. A single clause like "call before develop to obtain valid stock names" would have lifted this to 4-5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.