List available SDK client libraries for an API with languages, versions, and download links. Optionally specify a projectId to target a different project.
List the available SDK client libraries for this API (languages, versions, and download links)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | Project to read. Optional — defaults to the project this server was started with. Only pass it to target a different project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description carries little safety burden. It adds a useful hint about the list contents, but it does not mention potential variability, limits, or behavior when projectId is invalid.
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 description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The core action and result contents are front-loaded and everything included earns its place.
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 simple read-only listing tool with no required parameters and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It defines the output content and purpose, though it could mention whether the optional projectId changes the returned SDK list.
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 schema covers the only parameter (projectId) with a complete description, so the baseline applies. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('SDK client libraries') with details about contents (languages, versions, download links). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_endpoints and get_sdk_methods.
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 implies when to use the tool—when the agent needs available SDK client libraries for the API—but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_sdk_methods could plausibly overlap, so some routing guidance would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.