Discover shared utility functions in a project, showing their name, group, folder, and parameter count.
List shared utility functions in a project (name, groupName, folder, param 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'list' and identifies returned fields, but does not mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, front-loading the action and including essential output details in parentheses without verbosity.
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?
The description names the returned fields, which is critical given the absence of an output schema. It does not mention sorting, filtering, or error handling, but for a simple listing tool, the provided information is likely sufficient.
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, including its default from an environment variable. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.
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 tool's function: listing shared utility functions in a project, specifying the fields returned (name, groupName, folder, param count). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_flows and list_page_objects.
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 purpose is clear from the name and description, making when to use it obvious in the context of sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.