Retrieve algorithm implementations, optionally filtered by algorithm ID, to support benchmarking and performance analysis across JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python.
List implementations, optionally filtered by algorithm
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| algorithmId | No | Filter by algorithm ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic listing action but does not disclose return format, default behavior when no filter is applied, ordering, pagination, or any side effects.
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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. The main action and optional filter are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from explaining what an implementation is, what fields are returned, and how filtering behaves.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema: both say the parameter filters by algorithm ID. No additional semantics about match behavior or value format are provided.
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 ('implementations') and states the optional filter. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_algorithms and list_test_cases, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 usage context is implied: this is the tool for listing implementations. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs list_algorithms or other sibling tools, and no exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.