Locate Houdini shelf tools by name, label, or keyword to identify the command or asset needed for a task.
Find shelf tools by name, label or keyword.
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_shelf_tools"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about behavior beyond the lookup keys. It omits whether the result set is capped, how the filter matches (substring, exact, regex), whether matching is case-sensitive, and what each result contains — all critical for a discovery tool whose output feeds other calls.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lookup keys are stated first. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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?
The tool itself is simple (two optional params, read-style discovery, no output schema), but with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation the description is the only source of meaning and it does not cover filter behavior, result limits, or return shape. An agent can guess how to call it but not how to interpret or bound the response.
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%, so neither the limit (default 60) nor the nullable filter is documented structurally. The phrase "by name, label or keyword" hints at what filter accepts but gives no syntax, matching rules, or statement that limit truncates results, leaving both parameters under-explained.
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?
"Find shelf tools by name, label or keyword" states a concrete verb (find) and resource (shelf tools) plus the lookup dimensions, so an agent understands it is a search/discovery operation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_shelf_tool_script or run_shelf_tool, which the reader must infer from the names 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?
The description contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. An agent must infer that this is a discovery step preceding run_shelf_tool or get_shelf_tool_script, with nothing in the text confirming that workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.