CityEngine Cloud MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_demos

Lists CityEngine homepage demo cases with ID, name, engine, source date, and attribute count; pass any returned entry to get_demo to inspect its attribute panel.

Instructions

列出 CityEngine 官网首页的 demo 案例（id、名称、引擎、来源日期、属性个数）。

返回条目可传给 get_demo 查看属性面板细节。

Tool call template

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_demos"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden itself; it does disclose the scope (homepage demos only, from the official site) and the shape of each entry. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how results are ordered or paged, or how many demos come back, and because a listing tool is low risk, those gaps are real but not severe.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences: first the action and returned fields, then the hand-off to get_demo. Nothing is padded, and the primary purpose leads.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and schema coverage at 100%, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the fields that come back and the follow-up tool. Only minor operational detail is missing (ordering, volume), which an agent could still want.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4: there are no inputs whose meaning needs explanation beyond what the schema already conveys. The description matches the empty schema and adds no misleading input hints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb plus resource ('列出 CityEngine 官网首页的 demo 案例') and enumerates the fields each entry carries (id, name, engine, source date, attribute count). It also implicitly separates this list view from the detail view in get_demo, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence establishes the workflow: entries returned here are meant to be passed to get_demo for attribute-panel details. That gives clear when-to-use context for this tool and a natural next step, though it stops short of stating exclusions or noting when a different tool (e.g. get_quota or parse_cga) would apply instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server