list_tablesList all tables associated with a HEPData record by providing its identifier and optional version to discover available data.
List tables advertised by a HEPData record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | ||
| identifier | Yes |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting, or what 'advertised' means), but it does not contradict the annotations either.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately short for a simple list operation, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
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?
While an output schema is present and likely covers the return format, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves critical gaps. An agent would need external knowledge to know what 'identifier' refers to (HEPData record ID) and how optional 'version' is used.
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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'identifier' and 'version' are given without any meaning, so an agent cannot infer what values are expected or how they affect the result.
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 action ('List') and resource ('tables advertised by a HEPData record'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like describe_table (which describes a specific table) and get_table (which retrieves data).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be called before selecting a table, nor does it point to siblings like describe_table or get_table for further actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.