Lists all loaded PyMOL objects so you can inspect the current session and choose object names before composing selections or running view tools.
Lists all loaded PyMOL objects.
Call this when you don't know what's currently in the session — for
example before composing a selection or running a view tool that needs
an obj_name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds modest context by scoping the result to 'loaded' objects 'currently in the session', but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether hidden/empty objects appear. Given the annotations and the presence of an output schema, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The declarative statement of what it returns comes first, followed by the usage cue, which is the right front-loading for a lookup tool.
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 zero-argument read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is needed: the scope of the result and when to reach for it. It could go further by noting how objects are identified (name vs. type) or how it relates to sibling listing tools, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema coverage figure of 100% is trivially satisfied by an empty property set.
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 gives a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('all loaded PyMOL objects'), so the agent knows exactly what the call returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_chains or list_ligands, though the noun 'objects' is reasonably discriminating.
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 states a clear triggering condition — 'when you don't know what's currently in the session' — and gives two concrete examples (before composing a selection, before a view tool needing obj_name). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion cases, so it is one step below fully prescriptive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.