Retrieve the available function types for a transform path, listing all valid function names to which the transform can be set.
Get the dictionary of available Transform function types (funcdict). Returns list of function type names that this Transform can be set to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transform_path | Yes | Transform path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does indicate a read-only operation returning a list of type names, but it does not explain what happens for invalid/nonexistent transform paths, and it uses 'dictionary' and 'list' inconsistently, leaving return-shape ambiguity.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the first sentence identifies the tool's purpose and the second clarifies the return content. It is appropriately front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and the general purpose. It could mention error behavior for invalid paths, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.
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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds little beyond the schema, though the phrase 'that this Transform can be set to' reinforces that transform_path refers to an existing Transform object.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('dictionary of available Transform function types (funcdict)'), and clarifies the return value as function type names. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like transform_get_function, which would retrieve the current or specific function rather than the list of available types.
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 this tool is used to discover which function types a Transform can be set to, which suggests pairing with transform_set_function. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.