List available pipelines and inspect their safe operational state to verify configuration without exposing source credentials or payload history.
List pipelines and safe operational state; no source credentials or payload history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the response is redacted of source credentials and payload history, which tells the agent it cannot use this call to inspect secrets or execution payloads.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the scoping caveat. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.
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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level ('safe operational state') and what is excluded. It stops short of naming the fields or shape of a pipeline record, which is the only remaining gap.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, so the empty parameter set is fully self-documenting.
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 ('List pipelines') plus the scope of what is returned ('safe operational state'), which separates it from mutation siblings like trmnl_pipeline_save and trmnl_pipeline_run. It does not explicitly differentiate from trmnl_pipeline_read, leaving the list-vs-detail distinction implied by the verb.
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?
Listing is obviously the implied use, and the note about excluding credentials suggests it is the safe discovery call. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over trmnl_pipeline_read or what conditions make it inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.