Lists TTCraft tables your account can manage and shows each table's running status, room, and channel, so you can quickly identify and monitor active games.
List TTCraft tables that your account can manage, with running status, room and channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by saying results are scoped to manageable tables and include running status, room, and channel, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or result limits.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes either scope, returned fields, or the resource being listed.
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-parameter read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, account scope, and key returned attributes. Minor gaps remain around pagination or result-size behavior, but they are not critical for invocation.
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 are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The empty schema is fully described at 100% coverage, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 and resource: 'List TTCraft tables.' It also narrows scope with 'that your account can manage' and names returned fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings such as objects_list or library_list.
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 description states what the tool returns but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the listing tool for manageable tables.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.