textstyle_listLists text styles in an AutoCAD drawing, including STYLE table entries and the style assigned to new TEXT or MTEXT objects. Use it to inspect available styles before adding annotation.
Every STYLE table entry and the one new TEXT/MTEXT will use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden, but it adds no behavioral context at all (no mention of what is returned, that it enumerates all styles, or any scoping). Its phrasing about 'the one new TEXT/MTEXT will use' is confusing and implies a relationship rather than disclosing 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?
It is short, but length is not the issue: the single sentence is grammatically broken and not front-loaded with the action. It reads as a leftover clause rather than a deliberate, self-contained statement of what the tool does.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and an empty parameter list keeps the surface small. However, the description is too garbled to tell an agent what the tool returns or when it applies, which is inadequate even for this simple read-only list tool.
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 document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description neither helps nor harms parameter understanding.
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 a grammatical fragment ('Every STYLE table entry and the one new TEXT/MTEXT will use.') that never states a clear verb-resource pair such as 'list text styles.' The title carries the actual purpose, and the description only gestures at style-table entries being associated with new text, which is closer to tautology than a distinct purpose statement.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives such as textstyle_create or textstyle_set_current. The sentence appears to describe a side effect rather than a circumstance for invoking this tool, leaving the agent with nothing to route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.