Lists every configuration in the active part or assembly and identifies which configuration is currently active, so you can see available variants before editing or exporting.
Lists all configurations in the active part or assembly document, indicating the active one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by scoping results to the active document and noting that the active configuration is marked in the output, which affects how the agent interprets results.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint and the active-configuration flag both land immediately.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no prose, annotations cover safety, and there are no parameters, so the description is nearly complete. The only residual gap is that it is silent on whether parent/sub-configurations are included or how an empty-configuration list behaves.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the schema requires no explanation. The description correctly spends no words on parameters and instead directs attention to the document scope.
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?
Specific verb ('Lists') plus resource ('all configurations') and an explicit scope ('active part or assembly document'), with the added detail that the active one is flagged. It is naturally distinguishable from add_configuration and activate_configuration, though it never names a sibling to compare against.
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 is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this to discover what configurations exist before activating one,' but the description states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools. Nothing misleading, just unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.