cm_results_listList the newest CarMaker .erg result files from the project's SimOutput, CM_RESULT_DIRS, and current session run folders, with an optional limit.
Newest .erg result files under the project's SimOutput folder, CM_RESULT_DIRS and the folders this session's runs wrote to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of files |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 genuine value by disclosing the search scope (project SimOutput, CM_RESULT_DIRS, session-written folders), which is behavior the annotations can't convey, but it says nothing about ordering guarantees beyond the implied 'newest', result cap behavior, or what happens when no sources exist.
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 compact sentence with the most decision-relevant information (file type) front-loaded. No filler, though it is a fragment rather than a statement of action.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the search scope is documented. However, for a tool embedded among many results-oriented siblings, the absence of any routing or sequencing guidance leaves the description only minimally adequate.
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% and there is a single optional limit parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's only contribution is the implicit newest-first ordering, which is not formalized anywhere else but is not tied to the limit parameter either.
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 specifies the resource precisely: newest .erg result files, and enumerates the search roots (SimOutput, CM_RESULT_DIRS, session run folders). It distinguishes itself from cm_read/cm_list by naming the file type and location, but reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement and never differentiates from close siblings like cm_results_read or cm_results_summary.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all. Given siblings cm_results_read, cm_results_summary, cm_standalone_results, and cm_load_testrun all operate on results, the agent gets no signal about which to pick or in what order to call them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.