get_librariesLists the libraries loaded in an Archicad project, including name, path, type, availability, read-only status, and total library part count.
Lists the libraries loaded in the project (Library Manager): name, path, type (Local, Embedded, BuiltIn, Server, Url ...), available, readOnly, plus the total number of library parts.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the actual payload shape (name, path, type, available, readOnly, total part count), which matters because no output schema exists. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, keeping it short of a 5.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields folded into the same sentence. No filler or repetition of the title.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields, including the type vocabulary and total part count. It stops short of describing ordering, filtering absence, or how 'available' is determined, but nothing critical to invoking it 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the enumeration of return fields is a bonus rather than a parameter clarification.
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 and resource (lists libraries loaded in the project), scopes it to the Library Manager, and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_databases or search_library_parts without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource ('loaded libraries') but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to related siblings (add_libraries, remove_libraries, reload_libraries, search_library_parts). Adequate but leaves selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.