Lists the entities in a DMF data project, including source format and execution order (unit, level, sequence), so you can verify project targets and dependency order.
List the entities defined in a DMF data project, with source format and execution order (unit/level/sequence).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| definition_group | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. "List" implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the description usefully notes the ordering/format fields returned, but it says nothing about prerequisites (does the project need to exist / be accessible), pagination, or behavior on an empty or unknown group.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned detail parenthesized rather than sprawling. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description does gesture at the ordering fields. However, with zero schema coverage on the one required parameter and no sibling differentiation, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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 sole required parameter, definition_group, is never explained in the description. The agent must supply a required argument whose meaning, format, and source of valid values are entirely undocumented.
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 ("List the entities defined in a DMF data project") and adds what is returned (source format, execution order unit/level/sequence). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_entities, so an agent cannot tell purely from the description which one to reach for.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though search_entities and list_data_projects are obvious overlapping siblings. The only usage signal is the implied scoping to a single project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.