Discover available tool profiles to see which tools are exposed. Use the APS_PROFILE environment variable to narrow down the list to a specific profile, such as data.
Show available tool profiles. Set APS_PROFILE env var to limit exposed tools (e.g. APS_PROFILE=data).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only behavior ('Show') and the env var effect, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format, whether it reads from a configuration, or any error conditions. For a low-risk listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a single, relevant usage note. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.
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?
Given that this is a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully addresses what it does and how to influence its behavior. It is complete for the tool's complexity and context, especially when compared to the large set of sibling tools that require more explanation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), and the description adds the meaningful context of the env var, which effectively acts as a parameter. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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: 'Show available tool profiles.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of the APS_PROFILE env var distinguishes it from sibling tools that list tasks or tools for a different scope, like list_tools_for_scope.
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 provides a clear usage guideline: setting the APS_PROFILE env var limits exposed tools. It implies when this tool is useful (to see profiles and control tool exposure), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is sufficient for a simple listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.