bloom_list_behaviorsLists the Bloom behaviors this server can evaluate and returns read-only JSON with behavior IDs and count so you can select one for bloom_evaluate_model.
List Bloom behaviours this server can evaluate. Use bloom_evaluate_model with one of these ids. Read-only. Returns JSON behaviors and count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description repeats read-only status and mentions JSON behaviors/count, but adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations and the output schema already provide.
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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every sentence supports discovery or next-step usage.
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 annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the next tool to use, and the general return shape without duplicating schema detail.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to explain any inputs.
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 and resource: list Bloom behaviours the server can evaluate. It also distinguishes the tool from bloom_evaluate_model by explaining that the returned ids are inputs to that sibling.
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?
It clearly tells the agent to use bloom_evaluate_model with one of the returned ids, giving a strong usage path. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the sibling relationship is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.