list_checksLists every available rural land check with its name, question it answers, approximate duration, and free-plan availability, so you can choose checks to pass to analyse_plot.
Every check a report can run: its name, what it answers, roughly how long it
takes, and whether the free plan runs it (free). Pass names from here to
analyse_plot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of each returned entry, including that runtime is approximate ('roughly how long it takes') and that plan availability is exposed via `free` — details the annotations cannot convey.
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, front-loaded with the resource and field list, then the hand-off instruction. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — it does so adequately by naming the four fields and their meaning. Minor gaps remain (ordering of results, whether the list is static or plan-dependent at call time), but nothing critical to 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?
With zero parameters the baseline is 4; there is nothing to document and the description correctly does not invent parameter guidance. Instead it spends its words on the return contents, which is the right trade-off.
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 opens with a specific resource and scope: 'Every check a report can run', and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (name, what it answers, runtime, free-plan flag). An agent can immediately tell this is a static catalog of available checks, distinct from the analysis siblings.
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 explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Pass names from here to analyse_plot', making the discover-then-analyse workflow clear. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but for a zero-param catalog tool the intended use is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.