classapp_list_entitiesLists the profiles available to the authenticated user without opening messages, so you can choose an entityId for later notice operations.
List profiles available to the authenticated user, without opening messages. Choose an entityId for subsequent notice operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful nuance — that it does not open messages, i.e., no read-state side effects — but says nothing about result shape, volume, or scoping 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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The "without opening messages" clause is a slightly awkward mid-sentence insertion but still earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter read tool needs little more. Purpose plus the follow-on entityId step covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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 the schema baseline is 4. The description usefully points at entityId as the output field to act on next, adding value beyond the empty schema.
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 ("List profiles available to the authenticated user") with a clear scope qualifier. It implicitly separates itself from message-reading siblings via "without opening messages," though it never names a sibling tool directly.
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?
"Choose an entityId for subsequent notice operations" tells the agent exactly why and when to call this — as a discovery/prerequisite step before notice work. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.