list_profilesDisplays available tool profiles and explains how setting APS_PROFILE limits exposed MCP tools to a chosen profile.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only a configuration note about APS_PROFILE, which is mildly useful context but not behavioral detail about the listing 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?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The env-var sentence is relevant but slightly intrusive for a tool with no parameters.
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?
A no-arg read-only listing tool needs little explanation, and no output schema exists so return shape need not be described. However, it never explains what a 'profile' is or what the listing contains, leaving the agent to infer the value of calling it.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, and the APS_PROFILE mention is environment configuration rather than an input argument.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Show available tool profiles.' Clear about what is returned (a list of profiles), but gives no differentiation from sibling tools like list_tools_for_scope or check_tier that also concern tool/scope listing.
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 second sentence mentions setting APS_PROFILE but frames it as external configuration rather than explaining when to call this tool versus alternatives such as list_tools_for_scope. No when/when-not guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.