Lists user-defined types from a Yaskawa MotionWorks IEC project, excluding vendor library types. Specify the project file or directory path to retrieve only project-defined UDTs.
List user-defined types only (project-defined, excluding the vendor library).
Args: path: Project file or directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scoping behavior (project-defined only) but does not describe any side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or return format. For a listing tool, the absence of behavioral details beyond the basic scope is a notable gap.
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 extremely concise, consisting of one main sentence plus a one-line parameter explanation. It front-loads the core purpose and scope with no filler or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
The tool is simple (lists UDTs) and has an output schema (though not shown), so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given no annotations and minimal parameter detail, the description could provide more context on path semantics or usage examples. It is minimally sufficient but leaves room for ambiguity about acceptable path inputs.
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%, so the description must compensate for the path parameter. The description says 'Project file or directory', which adds basic meaning but is vague about file formats or expected path structure. It does not clarify whether the path must be a specific project file type or how directories are handled, providing only minimal semantic value.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('user-defined types only'), and explicitly scopes to project-defined UDTs while excluding the vendor library. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_types that likely list all types, so an agent can distinguish it without opening other definitions.
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 implies when to use it by stating 'only' and 'excluding the vendor library', but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_types exist, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.