Lists all visible pane tabs in the Houdini UI to help you identify open panes and navigate the interface.
List all visible pane tabs in the Houdini UI.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_panes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' signals a read-only behavior, and 'all visible pane tabs' scopes the behavior. However, it does not explicitly disclose side effects, visibility semantics, or what information about the pane tabs is included, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with a clear action and object, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.
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?
Given the zero-parameter schema and low complexity, the description is nearly complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It could mention what is returned or the exact scope of 'visible,' but the current text is adequate for a trivial list operation.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully exhausted and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and this is sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('all visible pane tabs in the Houdini UI'), making the tool's function immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_lights or list_materials by naming the exact UI object being enumerated.
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 description clearly implies the tool is for querying visible Houdini UI pane tabs, but it offers no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives or when it would not be appropriate. For a simple read-only list tool, this implied context is adequate but not enriched.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.