list_supported_conversionsDiscover all conversion slugs supported by ConvertFileFast MCP Server to determine which document, image, or data format pairs you can convert.
List every conversion slug supported by the MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose idempotentHint (no state modification) and openWorldHint (may interact externally), and the description does not contradict them. It adds the scope 'every conversion slug supported by the MCP server,' which clarifies the exhaustive nature of the result, but provides no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, auth, or exception cases.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the entire purpose efficiently without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It states the action and scope, leaving return-format details to the output schema. It could mention a typical workflow (e.g., using this list to validate slugs for convert_file), but that is more usage guidance than completeness.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to add beyond the input schema. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly omits parameter details because none exist.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every conversion slug supported by the MCP server'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are all action-oriented (compress, convert, create, etc.), but it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it falls short of the top score.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than stated: listing supported conversion slugs is a natural discovery step before using conversion tools like convert_file, but no explicit 'use this when' or 'use instead of' guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer the intended use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.