List Gmsh manual, API, option, source, guide, or capability records by kind with pagination, and filter results using an optional query.
List manual, api, option, source, guide or capability records with pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 covered. The description adds the behavioral trait of pagination and the scope of record kinds, which is useful additional context beyond the structured annotations.
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 wasted words. The verb and resource lead, and the enumeration of kinds is compact.
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?
The tool is low-complexity, has rich annotations, and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks usage guidance and fails to explain the query parameter, leaving gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all four parameters. It partially compensates by enumerating possible kind values and implying limit/offset through 'pagination', but it does not explain the query parameter at all and provides no syntax or format details for limit/offset.
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 ('records'), and enumerates the record kinds (manual, api, option, source, guide, capability), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like knowledge_search, which could also be used to find records.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as knowledge_search or knowledge_read. It only implies usage by saying it lists catalog records with pagination, but gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.