Lists curated enum sets for AVS subsets and package-practice values like DeliveryType, helping MCP clients retrieve valid options for DDEX ERN 3.8.2 metadata.
List curated enum sets (AVS subsets + package-practice values like DeliveryType).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only enumeration, but there is no mention of return format, pagination, or coverage/size of the curated sets. Beyond the implication of read-only listing, almost no behavioral context is given.
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 with no waste; the parenthetical scope detail is compact and directly useful.
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 simple zero-param listing this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should at least hint at what a curated enum set returns (names, values, groupings). The scope is named but the result shape is left entirely implicit.
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 0-param baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface that needs explaining.
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 (curated enum sets), and adds concrete scope detail via 'AVS subsets + package-practice values like DeliveryType'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling avs_values, which plausibly overlaps in the enum/value domain.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives. With siblings like avs_values and list_sequences in the same namespace, the agent gets no signal on when list_enums is the right choice versus avs_values.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.