Retrieve a paginated list of open FreeCAD documents, using limit and offset to navigate large sessions.
List the open FreeCAD documents.
Args:
limit/offset: Page size and start index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.7Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 50,
+ "maximum": 500,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "title": "Limit",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "maximum": 10000000,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "title": "Offset",
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the 'open documents' scope qualifier, which is useful context but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the core action first and the args note second. The 'Args:' block is slightly schema-like boilerplate but costs little.
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, so return values need not be explained, and the operation is simple. Still, the description gives no guidance on result ordering, whether pagination is needed for large sessions, or how this differs from sibling listing tools.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it labels limit/offset as 'Page size and start index', which is a real clarification. However it omits the defaults (50/0) and the max bounds (500, 10,000,000) that constrain valid calls.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: listing open FreeCAD documents. The scope word 'open' usefully distinguishes it from siblings like get_objects, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for listing documents on disk.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_objects or inspect_freecad. The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is the right entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.