list_furniture_catalogBrowse available furniture items, filtered by category or keyword, to select assets for fire simulation projects.
List available furniture items. Filter by category or keyword search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | No | Search keyword (name or ID) | |
| category | No | Category filter: living_room, bedroom, kitchen, office, bathroom, fire_safety, hvac, doors_windows, lights, misc |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether results are paginated, capped, or what 'available' excludes, so it contributes no behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the filtering detail, with no filler. It is slightly generic but wastes no space.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter catalog listing with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description covers enough to invoke it correctly. The only unaddressed point is default behavior with no filter applied, which is minor given there is no output schema to explain.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both optional parameters are documented in the schema, including the full category enumeration. The description merely restates 'category' and 'keyword' without adding format, matching, or precedence rules, so baseline 3 applies.
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 available furniture items'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby sibling get_furniture_info or place_furniture, leaving the choice between 'list' and 'get info' to inference.
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?
'Filter by category or keyword search' implies a browsing use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_furniture_info (details for one item) or place_furniture (insertion). Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.