List all CueMap projects with summary metadata and indicate whether each is loaded in RAM, enabling quick status checks.
List CueMap projects, summary metadata, and whether each project is currently loaded in RAM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose a useful read-only trait (list operation with no parameters) and a domain-specific detail: it reveals RAM-loaded status. It doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or stale-project nuances, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is adequate.
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?
One tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It packs two metadata details without waste; only a note about the loaded-in-RAM indicator could arguably be expanded, but nothing is extraneous.
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 parameterless list tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource and output fields. However, it doesn't state typical list semantics (ordering, size, project scope), and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Slightly above minimum.
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 has zero parameters, so the description naturally cannot add parameter meaning. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description correctly frames the tool as a no-argument listing operation.
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 states a specific verb (List), a clear resource (CueMap projects), and two specific bits of metadata (summary info, RAM-loaded status). It clearly distinguishes this list-style tool from load/save/unload 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Among many project-related siblings (load, save, unload, status), the description doesn't tell the agent when listing is the right choice or what use case it serves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.