Retrieves all published Universes (UNX and UNV) from the BI platform, returning each universe's ID, name, and folder ID for inventory or troubleshooting.
Retrieves all published Universes (UNX and UNV) from the BI platform. Returns a list of objects containing 'id', 'name', and 'folderId'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the scope constraint (only published universes, both UNX and UNV) and the returned fields, but says nothing about authentication requirements, result volume/pagination, or failure behavior for a list operation that could be large.
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, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence restates return fields that the output schema already documents, so it is slightly redundant, but it costs little and adds no noise.
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?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers what is needed: what is retrieved, which subtypes, and what the response contains. The remaining gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the many sibling get_universe_* tools.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema is an empty object, matching the description's claim that no filtering input is accepted.
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 ("Retrieves all published Universes") plus the artifact subtypes (UNX and UNV), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_universe_details or get_universe_structure, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 word "all" implies this is the enumeration entry point and that filtering is not supported, which is weak implied guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_universe_details, get_universe_structure, or get_universe_related_reports, and no prerequisites (e.g., login) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.