fields_listRetrieve all fields for a given entity to inspect schema details before querying or modifying data. Provide an entity name and get the field list.
List fields on an entity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes | Entity name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that: no return format, pagination behavior, or permission context is provided, so it does not enrich behavioral understanding.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence fragment with zero waste. It is appropriately compact for a trivial read tool, though its extreme brevity leaves no room for any supplementary context.
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 low-complexity, single-parameter list operation with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no mention of return shape (list of field objects) or pagination, an agent lacks some context it might reasonably need.
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 100%, so the single 'entity' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('fields') plus scope ('on an entity'), so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like fields_get or fields_update; the distinction is left to the tool name alone.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fields_get for a single field or fields_add/update/delete. The only implied usage is the tautological 'list fields when you want to list fields,' which is not actionable routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.