Discover available API operations for any module and entity. Specify a module to list its HTTP methods, paths, and descriptions, or omit entity to see all operations.
List operations (HTTP method + path + short description) for a given module and optional entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | No | Entity name. Omit to list operations across all entities of the module. | |
| module | Yes | Module name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds context about the return payload: each operation includes HTTP method, path, and short description. It also clarifies the 'optional entity' filtering behavior. No additional behavioral traits such as pagination or rate limits are disclosed, but that is not essential here.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('List operations'), and every word contributes meaning. No fluff or redundancy.
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 tool's simplicity, two parameters, and the presence of the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately communicates the tool's purpose, input scope, and return content (HTTP method, path, short description). It does not need to explain an output schema since none exists, and the context is clear enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for both 'module' and 'entity', with 100% coverage. The description merely echoes the terms 'module' and 'optional entity' without adding extra semantics, so it adds minimal value over the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 resource ('operations') with clear modifiers ('for a given module and optional entity'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aspro_list_modules and aspro_list_entities by focusing on operations.
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?
It specifies the context of use: given a module and optionally an entity. It implies the user should first select a module (via aspro_list_modules) and optionally an entity, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over aspro_search or aspro_describe. This is clear context without explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.