List available YAML themes to choose a layout for newsletter HTML and social pack rendering.
List shipped YAML themes (default, taverna-daily, minimal-plain).
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_themes"
}
}| 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 full disclosure burden; it does say these are shipped YAML themes, which conveys that they are static built-ins rather than user-created resources. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, that the list is fixed/small, or how the result is shaped, so a mutation-wary agent gains only partial reassurance.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical enumeration supplying the concrete values in minimal space. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is nearly sufficient, and the inline enumeration effectively previews the return values. It leaves a small gap around whether the list is exhaustive (e.g., custom or additional themes beyond the three named).
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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema's empty object. Baseline for a parameterless tool 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ("List shipped YAML themes") and enumerates concrete values (default, taverna-daily, minimal-plain), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling apply_theme as the contrasting action, but listing versus applying is unambiguous from the verb.
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: the word "shipped" hints at built-in themes as opposed to user-defined ones, and the enumeration suggests it is a discovery call. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no mention of following it with apply_theme, and no note about whether custom themes exist and where to find them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.