list_obstaclesRetrieve all obstacles with their IDs, positions, and properties from a fire-simulation project to inspect or validate scene geometry before analysis.
List all obstacles with their ID, position, and properties. [bulc-mcp rules] GEN-002, GEN-003, GEN-004 — 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds what a listed obstacle contains (ID, position, properties), but says nothing about ordering, scale, or pagination for what could be a large list.
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 tight, front-loaded, and earns its place. The second line is unexplained metadata bolted onto a tool description rather than a doc reference, reading as noise and raising more questions (what are GEN-002/003/004, and why fetch a knowledge article by '<id>'?) than it answers.
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, read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description does cover the essential return shape, and annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of what an agent would want before calling it on a real project: nothing about list size, ordering, or how to obtain a single obstacle's full detail.
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 no parameter semantics burden; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly spends no space on nonexistent inputs.
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 all obstacles') and enumerates the returned fields (ID, position, properties), which is more than the sibling list tools typically give. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent list tools such as list_geoms, list_surfaces, or get_object_properties, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus close relatives like get_object_properties, list_geoms, or the add/update/remove_obstacle family. The only appended text is a cryptic rule reference ('GEN-002, GEN-003, GEN-004 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"') that implies some workflow step but does not tell the agent which condition selects this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.