Lists internal bridge actions and their implementation status, helping you verify which operations are available before building or validating material graphs.
List the internal bridge actions and their implementation status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include implementation status, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination, authentication needs, or other behavioral details.
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 redundant or filler language. Every word contributes to specifying the action and its output.
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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is almost sufficient for correct invocation. The main gap is that 'internal bridge actions' remains somewhat undefined, but the agent does not need additional parameter or return-value instructions.
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 parameter semantics do not require description support. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema detail.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('internal bridge actions') and adds the returned attribute ('implementation status'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, and the term 'bridge actions' is not defined, but the purpose is clear.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the listed content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.