List preconfigured environment names and identify the active environment without credentials. Use it to select the correct YueShu Graph 5.3 workspace before validation or execution.
List preconfigured environment names and the active environment; no credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | Yes | ||
| environments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that — the call requires no credentials — but says nothing about freshness, caching, or the active-environment resolution semantics.
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; every clause (names, active environment, no credentials) carries information.
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, the description is not obliged to describe return values, and for a zero-param read-only list tool this is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the absence of routing context relative to the environment-related siblings.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter surface for the description to explain. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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 (preconfigured environment names and the active environment), which is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like nebula_switch_environment or nebula_list_graphs. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 this is the discovery step before nebula_switch_environment, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The trailing 'no credentials' clause hints at when the call is safe/available but is not framed as usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.