draw_list_storiesRetrieve the current building stories list (read-only) to inspect floor levels before setting up geometry, analyses, or evacuation scenarios.
Get current building stories list (read-only) [bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, GEO-002 — bulc_knowledge_search ""
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description merely repeats 'read-only' and adds no further behavioral context such as ordering, pagination, or what the story list contains.
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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded. The second line, '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, GEO-002 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"', is cryptic and does not clearly earn its place.
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 simple, parameterless, read-only list operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The missing piece is any indication of when to prefer this tool over other project-inspection 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The empty schema needs no additional parameter explanation from the description.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get current building stories list'. This distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like draw_add_story and draw_remove_story, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_object_properties or list_obstacles. The only contextual hint is '(read-only)', which describes safety rather than usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.