Lists currently open LIRA-SAPR/LIRA-FEM models with title, file path, model type, unsaved changes, and active status so agents can identify and manage the right model.
Models open in LIRA now: title, file path, model type, unsaved changes, active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The word 'now' usefully signals a point-in-time snapshot and the mention of 'unsaved changes' and 'active' flags are genuinely informative state fields, but neither is explained and no refresh/pagination semantics are given.
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 no filler. The colon-list format of returned fields is dense and slightly terse, but every word earns its place.
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 and there are no inputs, so the description carries little burden. Still, terms like 'active' and 'unsaved changes' are left undefined, and there is no signal about where in the workflow this listing fits.
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 to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or scoping arguments are needed.
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?
Names the resource and scope precisely ('Models open in LIRA now') and enumerates the fields returned, which distinguishes it from siblings like lira_list_backups or lira_list_input_tables. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as lira_status, lira_model_summary, or lira_open_model. The agent must infer that this is a discovery step before operating on an open model.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.