list_playbooksList discovery playbooks to see when to use each, required input fields, and creditsCap ranges; set detail=true to include web-form UI schema. Works without an API key.
List the discovery playbooks: when to use each, its input fields and creditsCap range. detail=true adds the web-form ui_schema. Works without an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the auth requirement ('Works without an API key') and explains the detail flag's concrete effect on the payload (adds the web-form ui_schema).
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?
Three short clauses with no filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the detail-flag behavior and auth note follow in priority order. Every sentence carries distinct 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?
With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does so by enumerating fields returned per playbook (when to use, input fields, creditsCap range) plus the ui_schema under detail. It is nearly complete; only the absence of any error or pagination behavior keeps it short of full coverage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the lone 'detail' boolean has no schema-level description, so the description carries the full burden. It does so adequately by stating exactly what detail=true changes (adds the web-form ui_schema), giving the agent enough to decide the flag's value.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('List the discovery playbooks') with scope made concrete by enumerating what each entry contains: when to use it, input fields, and creditsCap range. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_run_status or launch_discovery, which operate on runs and launches rather than the catalog.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of 'when to use each' playbook suggests this is the discovery step before launch_discovery, and 'Works without an API key' is a useful precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no statement of when not to use it, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.