Lists installed target mappers, detailing each format and version, package, and how each writes ISO 21090 Exceptional Values (preserved, degraded, carried, lost).
The target mappers installed: each target format and version, its package, and how it writes each ISO 21090 Exceptional Value (preserved, degraded, carried or lost).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the shape of each listed item, including value disposition categories (preserved, degraded, carried, lost), but it does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it is cached, or any auth or side-effect behavior.
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 efficiently describes the resource and the fields each entry includes. Every phrase contributes to understanding what is returned.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully explains the content and value-disposition vocabulary of the return data. It is nearly complete for a simple zero-parameter listing tool, though it could say slightly more about the list's ordering or shape.
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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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 clear listing verb implied by 'The target mappers installed' and specifies the resource: target formats, versions, packages, and exceptional-value handling. It is distinct from mutation/checking siblings like map_record or check_mapping, though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to siblings such as map_record or check_mapping. Usage is only implied by the list-like purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.