list_slcfRetrieve all SLCF outputs with ID, quantity, plane, and flags to inspect slice data from fire-simulation runs.
List all slice (SLCF) outputs with id, quantity, plane, and flags.
| 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, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the returned field set (id, quantity, plane, flags), which is useful context but not deep behavioral disclosure.
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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or wasted.
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 no output schema, the description usefully lists the fields an agent will receive (id, quantity, plane, flags), which compensates for the absent return schema. A zero-parameter, read-only listing tool is adequately covered by this one sentence.
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 the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to document inputs, and it does not introduce misleading parameter chatter.
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 (List) and resource (slice/SLCF outputs) and enumerates the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling add_slcf/remove_slcf/update_slcf by the read verb, though it never names those siblings 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?
Usage is implied by the 'List all' phrasing and the read-only nature of the tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus the related add/update/remove_slcf tools or other listing tools such as list_meshes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.