Retrieve data marts for a project version to inspect available datasets. Filter by name, mart type, or merge type for targeted discovery.
List data marts of a project version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| search | No | Case-insensitive substring of name or description | |
| language | No | ru | |
| mart_type | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| use_cache | No | ||
| merge_type | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | DataForge project id | |
| version_id | Yes | Project version id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not mention pagination behavior, caching effects, or the meaning of filters such as use_cache, mart_type, or merge_type.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It captures the core operation efficiently, though at the cost of omitting useful details.
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 9 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination, filtering behavior, or what a 'data mart' listing includes, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema for optional filters like page, page_size, language, mart_type, merge_type, or use_cache, leaving agents to guess their roles.
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'), a clear resource ('data marts'), and a scoping context ('of a project version'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like df_get_data_mart (retrieves a single mart) and df_list_fact_tables (a different resource type).
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as df_get_data_mart or df_list_fact_tables. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing this listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.