Retrieve all saved 3D designs with their IDs, names, branches, and last-updated timestamps to review or manage your project library.
List every design the user has saved — id, name, branches, last-updated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default: 24. | |
| filter | No | Default: "all". | |
| offset | No | Default: 0. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; 'list' implies a safe read, and enumerating returned fields (id, name, branches, last-updated) is genuine added value. However it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the listing is truncated by default, which matters for a list tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the scope and the payload with no filler. Slightly compact given the undocumented filter/pagination behavior it could have clarified.
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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, describing the returned fields is the right move. But the schema's parameter descriptions ('Default: "all"' for filter) are uninformative, and the description does not compensate by explaining valid filter values or pagination.
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 no meaning for limit/offset/filter, and the word 'every' slightly undercuts the schema's default limit of 24 without explaining pagination.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (designs the user has saved) and enumerates the returned fields, which separates it from search/all-designs tools. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, e.g. list_design_versions or list_cached_designs, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. 'The user has saved' implies personal scope but gives no guidance on picking between this and list_design_versions, search_design_versions, list_cached_designs or list_design_templates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.