List currently opened scans to track which drawings are loaded before converting them into layered CAD or editing.
List opened scans.
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": "scan_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether "opened" means in-memory/session state versus persisted files, whether this requires a prior scan_open, or whether results are paginated. A single read-only-sounding sentence is insufficient disclosure for a tool whose state semantics are the main question.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what is returned and what "opened" scopes to. It is minimally viable but leaves the central ambiguity (session-scoped vs. all scans) unresolved.
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 and the schema is trivially complete, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax the description could add.
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?
"List opened scans" names a verb and resource, so the basic action is discernible, but the qualifier "opened" is never defined and no sibling (scan_open, scan_view, scan_texts, drawing_list) is referenced to distinguish this list from other enumerations. The purpose is implied rather than stated precisely.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., must a scan be opened first via scan_open?), and no mention of alternatives among the many scan_* siblings. The agent must infer everything about selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.