Retrieve all worker sets from Rockfish AI to manage synthetic data generation and ML workflow orchestration.
List all worker sets
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_worker_sets"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing behavioral: no pagination, no scoping (organization/project), no return shape, no permission requirements. It only implies a read operation via 'List'.
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?
It is a single short clause with no filler, which is structurally fine, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision — there is nothing front-loaded beyond the bare verb.
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?
Even for a simple zero-param list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits whether results are scoped to an organization/project or paginated, which are real questions for a 'list all' tool. It is not adequate on its own.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description does not mislead about inputs.
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 is essentially the tool name expanded into a sentence: 'list_worker_sets' → 'List all worker sets'. It adds the scope word 'all' but no distinguishing information relative to siblings like get_worker_set or list_worker_groups.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (get_worker_set, list_worker_groups, list_worker_sets' relationship to projects/organizations), and no preconditions. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.