Provides the list of recognized ADT object type codes to diagnose and avoid invalid type code errors that return unhelpful 404 responses.
The object types this system knows, as ADT names them. Diagnostic: useful when a type code is in doubt, since a wrong one is refused with a 404 that says nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by warning that an invalid type code is rejected with a 404 that provides no detail, which explains why checking this list matters. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the identity and scope of the tool (
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 diagnostic tool with read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool is, what need it fills, and a meaningful pitfall. It could slightly elaborate on the return shape, but that is not critical for an agent to call this tool correctly.
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 are no parameter semantics the description needs to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is a 4; the description stays appropriately free of parameter-level noise.
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 explains that the tool returns the object types recognized by the system and frames it as a diagnostic lookup. It gives a concrete resource and a use case without being a tautology. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'return', which keeps it from being a 5.
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 gives a clear when-to-use condition: when a type code is in doubt, because an invalid one results in an uninformative 404. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.