Lists scenarios in an Easy Spec project with IDs, names, folders, and composed flow counts, providing a clear overview for review and organization.
List scenarios in a project (id, name, folder, composed flow count).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Path to the project root (same folder the side panel connects to). Defaults to the EASYSPEC_PROJECT environment variable if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the operation and return fields but does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, ordering, pagination, or any performance considerations. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes the essential return fields without any unnecessary words or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what is listed and which fields are returned. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., array of objects), but the parenthetical list of fields implies it. This is adequate for the tool's simplicity, though it could be slightly more explicit.
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 single parameter 'project' is fully described in the schema with its path and default behavior via EASYSPEC_PROJECT. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'scenarios', and the scope 'in a project', distinguishing it from siblings like list_flows and list_page_objects. It also specifies the returned fields (id, name, folder, composed flow count), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 usage is implied: list scenarios when you need the scenario list for a project. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_scenario or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.