open77_resourcesDiscover the server's current resources and their state with Warden-reported details, enabling validation and informed coding decisions for Open77 server development.
The resources the running server discovered, with their state, as Warden reports them.
| 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=true, so the description is not responsible for safety signaling. It adds modest context by naming Warden as the source and emphasizing the 'running server' and 'discovered' scope, which implies current runtime state rather than persisted configuration.
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 that conveys the essential meaning without filler. Every word contributes: resource scope, state, and Warden as the reporting source.
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 list operation, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and the source. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting it returns all discovered resources or how this relates to open77_resource, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning; it correctly focuses on the returned concept.
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 clearly identifies the resource: resources discovered by the running server, with their state, sourced from Warden. It conveys what the tool provides, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get'. It also hints at differentiation from siblings like open77_resource (singular) by focusing on the live server's discovered set.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over open77_resource, open77_server_status, or open77_changes, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.